# MUST I upgrade to SWM/DECA hardware for Whole Home DVR?



## eph3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Prior to upgrading to D* HD-DVR three years ago I enjoyed multi-room capabilities with the ReplayTV 5000 units I had in my home. These had been connected to my home hard-wired ethernet network which the ReplayTV units used to communicate to one another for playback or sending programming commands from one to another.

I lost the multi-room capability when I upgraded to D* HD-DVR and am now considering going to a D* Whole Home DVR configuration. Everything I have read so far implies that I now have to run another ethernet network within my home, although it would use the coax already in place for DirecTV. I think I understand what would change (upgrade one receiver to HD capable, install SWM, DECAs, PI, etc.) but why?

MUST I install all of this additional hardware to establish an ethernet network which the D* receivers can use when I already have an existing hardwired ethernet network already in place?

Are there advantages to having the SWM network separate from my regular home network? One can think of is separating the D* traffic from my computer network, but are there others?

Thanks all!


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

See this thread for information about using your existing ethernet network for whole-home DVR.


----------



## eph3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks Bob. I had scanned through that thread prior to my posting but with so many responses there it was difficult to determine the answers to my questions.

If I've read between the lines correctly, it seems that it is possible to use an existing ethernet network BUT it depends a lot on how you communicate with D* and it's currently an unsupported configuration. Is that right?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Must - no.

Should - probably.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If you want it to work properly and flawlessly with support from Directv I would let them install the DECA/SWM WHDVR Service and be done with it as I just love mine and I had it connected via my LAN but it didn't work flawlessly and gave me periodic problems.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Hook up your receivers to your home network. Follow the instructions in the other thread about sending an e-mail to DirecTV. They will turn on MRV in an unsupported mode for you. That's it.

- Merg


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

eph3 said:


> Thanks Bob. I had scanned through that thread prior to my posting but with so many responses there it was difficult to determine the answers to my questions.
> 
> If I've read between the lines correctly, it seems that it is possible to use an existing ethernet network BUT it depends a lot on how you communicate with D* and it's currently an unsupported configuration. Is that right?


It (ethernet) is unsupported, and it will stay that way. You can get it turned on in unsupported mode, just follow the instructions to do so. You can't get any help with making it work or fixing problems from D*. (you have to come here for that)

As yet another person who was running it unsupported (and worked for many months with the group of people who were testing it), I can say that as well as the unsupported approach worked (it still costs you the same $3.00 per month), the DECA approach works better for me. Fewer glitches and smoother trick play, is how I would characterize it.

In my situation, I'm running both. I have two DVRs and one HD receiver on SWM and DECA. I have a 3rd DVR on a different dish, and it is integrated with the WHDVR system with a wireless gaming adapter. As such, there is no support for the 2nd dish (w/r to WHDVR), but at least if I choose to, I can view programming on it and from it. It doesn't work as well as the SWM/DECA setup, and I don't use it much that way. I have it setup so I can use it for WHDVR if I choose, but mostly because it was an interesting technical challenge.

I would strongly recommend going SWM/DECA. You get a better sat signal (as a side benefit), and WHDVR works somewhat better.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

If you have a well architected wired LAN with 'current' equipment (switches/router/etc.) then while the configuration is officially unsupported by D it should work just fine. I have 2 HD DVR's and 2 HD rcvr's that have all been running MRV flawlessly on my existing network since MRV was first made available.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I agree a DECA/SWM configuration will provide better overall service. However I also agree a good home network can support satisfactory MRV for most people, most of the time.

I actually have a hybrid system. I've got 3 DVRs and two receivers on SWM/DECA, plus another DVR not on that system. The DECA cloud is connected to my LAN, as is the fourth DVR, and all play together.


----------



## eph3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks for all of the info and feedback here! I do have a very stable home network, and as I mentioned in my original post I was regularly using it for my ReplayTV DVRs to communicate to each other as well as stream content back and forth.

At the very least I will integrate a SWM8 unit with HR-24 and try MRV over my existing network after turning on the service with D*. To me, the added complexity and components for D's DECA network is a concern, adding multiple new potential points of failure. I may end up going to that configuration, but I'm going to test with my existing network infrastructure first.

Thanks!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

eph3 said:


> To me, the added complexity and components for D's DECA network is a concern, adding multiple new potential points of failure.
> 
> Thanks!


I've been using it for about 18 months and it/they aren't/haven't been a "concern".
Actually I might have had more problems using ethernet. :lol:


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

If your current wired network is stable and you were using it to distribute video before then you should have no trouble using it for MRV. While theoretically SWM/DECA may at some point in the future allow you to do something that you can't currently do over a well architected wired network, I have yet to see any indication of that capability being rolled out anytime soon.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Keep in mind your replay equipment was streaming SD, not HD. Big difference in bandwidth.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

carl6 said:


> Keep in mind your replay equipment was streaming SD, not HD. Big difference in bandwidth.


Yes, HD is about 6 to 7 times larger than SD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> Yes, HD is about 6 to 7 times larger than SD.


Bandwidth ratio is about 5 to 1 for HD to SD.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Bandwidth ratio is about 5 to 1 for HD to SD.


Well, I had heard 6.5 to 1 but maybe that was MPEG-2 and not MPEG-4!!!


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Bandwidth ratio is about 5 to 1 for HD to SD.


As long as he has a well architected wired LAN it will be able to EASILY handle HD. A 100 Mbps wired LAN has plenty of bandwidth. My wiring is all CAT 5e and all my switches and my router support 1000 Mbps. Note that the Ethernet ports on the D equipment is currently only 100 Mbps.

Again, any technical benefit of SWM/DECA, outside of the benefits of ease of installation and ease of support, which are benefits for D and their installers not directly benefits for the consumer, are currently only "specification" benefits and are not being utilized by anything D is currently doing or has even announced intention of doing.

It was actually interesting if you watched the most recent D investor briefing, their chief technologist admitted that one of the reasons they went with running the network traffic over the coax lines (made possible by DECA) was that the installers understood how to work with coax.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> As long as he has a well architected wired LAN it will be able to EASILY handle HD. A 10 Mbps wired LAN has plenty of bandwidth. My wiring is all CAT 5e and all my switches and my router support 100 Mbps. Note that the Ethernet ports on the D equipment is currently only 10 Mbps.


Not sure where you got this, but it isn't correct.
MPEG-4 HD normally "averages" around 9 Mb/s, but can be 16 Mb/s and trickplay can be over 30 Mb/s, so the receiver IS USING 100 Mb/s ports.
"All you need to do is" use DirecTV2PC and monitor your network to see these.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Sorry about that...my fault for trying to do many things at once this afternoon. That should have been 100 Mbps and 1000 Mbps (Gigabit Ethernet). Sorry if I confused anybody.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If your having them upgrade equipment anyway, just go deca now.. It'd be more expensive latter i have a feeling.. And there is ZERO reason not to go deca... There are POSSIBLE downsides to not going deca... Thats as simple as I can put it...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> .. And there is ZERO reason not to go deca... There are POSSIBLE downsides to not going deca...


For people that do not have existing wired LAN's or who are not network savy or who are just more comfortable with a completely D supported configuration by all means have DECA installed. But for people who do already have well functioning wired LAN's, who are network savy, and don't really want D contactors/installers touching their equipment/installations anyway I disagree with your statements.

Reasons not to go DECA:
Don't want to pay D the additional expense
Don't want the extra equipment
Don't want the additional complexity
Don't want another network
I could go on but you get the idea...

So while the reasons not to have DECA installed are real TODAY the downside is only possible/theoretical sometime possibly in the future.

As I mentioned before, even D's chief technologist basically admitted that the reason they went with DECA is for ease of installation and support rather than any current deficiencies in modern wired LAN technology.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> If your having them upgrade equipment anyway, just go deca now.. It'd be more expensive latter i have a feeling.. And there is ZERO reason not to go deca... *There are POSSIBLE downsides to not going deca*... Thats as simple as I can put it...


A fair assessment on all points.

Since DECA is said to be the foundation for other potential future things at DirecTV...that would be yet another motivation...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Reasons not to go DECA:
> 
> 
> Don't want to pay D the additional expense
> ...


Frankly, only #1 makes any sense to me.
#2 may be meaningless as the customer could already have "the equipment".
#3 could be seen as less complexity.
#4 If it's connected to your router, is isn't "another network", but merely an extension of your current.

Don't get me wrong here, if one wants to use/maintain their own ethernet for MRV, then do it.
I just find most of these "reasons not to" more fear of the unknown than "valid".
For 18 months mine has worked flawlessly and I no longer have cat5 running/laying around the house.

"So" to me it simply comes down to cost.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

I certainly agree that if you have cat5 laying around the house then you are certainly better off with DECA. The parameters I originally were that you already had installed a well architected wired LAN. That does not include having to string or lay cat5 along floors. Sorry if that was not clear.

Point 2 - The original question was about someone who did not currently have SWM/DECA installed but did have an existing wired LAN. In that case having SWM/DECA installed would necessitate additional equipment.

Point 3 - You say less complexity I say having yet another LAN is additional complexity...suppose we can agree to disagree... ; - )

Point 4 - The traffic is separate and it uses diffident technology so to me it certainly is another LAN but again I will agree to disagree.

Look, I'm really not anti DECA. It is in fact an excellent solution for the vast majority of D customers and it is unquestionably easier for the D installers to install, utilizes their existing skill set (coax), most customers existing wiring (coax), and is easier and less complex for D to troubleshoot/fix. Those are all excellent reasons for most customers to use DECA. That is why, IMHO, when you are making the case as to why someone should have DECA installed their is little reason to resort to some supposed technical inferiority of a well architected wired LAN implemented with modern 100/1000 Mbps cat5e/cat6 technology.

Specific to that last point, it is interesting to note, as I had previously mentioned, that during the recent D investor briefing Romulo Pontual, when discussing D "Advanced In-Home Networking" did not mention any technical reasons why they went with DECA/MOCA over existing LAN technology. Instead he talked about the fact that D installers were "experts" at installing coaxial cabling and that having them install network cabling and equipment would be "completely new" and "we avoid that". His comments are here starting at time stamp 07:18, chart 6 of 19 in his section:

http://www-waa-akam.thomson-webcast...85&portal_id=577066da84fce060a6d9470ffc282ce3


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Point 2 - The original question was about someone who did not currently have SWM/DECA installed but did have an existing wired LAN. In that case having SWM/DECA installed would necessitate additional equipment.
> 
> Point 3 - You say less complexity I say having yet another LAN is additional complexity...suppose we can agree to disagree... ; - )
> 
> Point 4 - The traffic is separate and it uses diffident technology so to me it certainly is another LAN but again I will agree to disagree.


If you have H24/HR24's, then there is no additional equipment except for the Broadband DECA. And you can look at the Broadband DECA as just a switch, since that is essentially is how it is acting. You are not creating another LAN. You have the DECA cloud, which for all purposes is just an extension of your current home network. It is, however, isolated from the rest of your network via the Broadband DECA so that MRV traffic does not interfere with your normal LAN traffic. But, that is how things would work if you isolated your receivers via a switch on an ethernet network.

- Merg


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

The Merg said:


> ... except for the Broadband DECA. ...
> 
> - Merg


...which is an additional piece of equipment. BTW, isn't their a power inserter required somewhere as well? Anyway, my point was that DECA would require additional equipment. A net '1' qualifies as additional...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I certainly agree...


There is "no question" that DirecTV's intent was for this to be familiar to the techs and to limit their involvement with the customer's home network.

I guess there may be a question of the base point and complexity. If you're still on a non SWiM setup, you're behind the times, still using BBCs, and double coax.
SWiM has some pluses on its own, which can be seen also as simplifying the system, "and" has become the standard install.

"Traffic":
Doesn't a well managed ethernet use switches to manage traffic? The whole DECA cloud, when connected to your home network, acts like one big switch.

I'm not "pushing DECA", but I do seem to be "pushing back" against those saying not to use it.

If you have ethernet in place, then whether to use it or not simply comes down to cost, as they perform equally.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> ...which is an additional piece of equipment. BTW, isn't their a power inserter required somewhere as well? Anyway, my point was that DECA would require additional equipment. A net '1' qualifies as additional...


"OK" trying to be as ridiculous, "a cable", "a switch" is additional equipment too. :lol:


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> ...which is an additional piece of equipment. BTW, isn't their a power inserter required somewhere as well? Anyway, my point was that DECA would require additional equipment. A net '1' qualifies as additional...


As stated, it is like a switch, which would also have a power supply. If you run MRV over your ethenet, this would be the best way to do it as you really want to keep the MRV traffic separate from your regular home network traffic. So, even though you need to add one additional piece of equipment, it would still be the same as an optimized home network.

- Merg


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> :beatdeadhorse:


 Yeah... posted mine before I saw your response.... 

- Merg


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "OK" trying to be as ridiculous, "a cable", "a switch" is additional equipment too. :lol:


Dunno, I implemented MRV on my existing LAN without adding any additional equipment, not a cable, switch, dongle, nothing. To add DECA would require me to add additional equipment. That was all I was saying. And that statement, for me, is unarguably true.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Dunno, I implemented MRV on my existing LAN without adding any additional equipment, not a cable, switch, dongle, nothing. To add DECA would require me to add additional equipment. That was all I was saying. And that statement, for me, is unarguably true.


"So" your baseline was networked receivers.
Kind of a biased starting point, right?

"Just as biased":
Customer has SWiM, and H/HR24s. 
MRV is added with no additional equipment.

BTW: I've had MRV for two years and had more issues in the first six months with ethernet than the past 18 months with DECA.

"Everyone's mileage will vary"


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

So to get back to the OP's question:










No this setup isn't needed but the SWM8 can help with rainfade, to some degree, as it can/will amplify weak signals by 15 dB.
To go DECA only requires two of them and no additional cabling to the master bedroom.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "So" your baseline was networked receivers.
> Kind of a biased starting point, right?
> 
> "Just as biased":
> ...


Yes, YMMV. I have been running MRV since the original beta using my Ethernet LAN. The only problems I have ever experienced were problems with D's software and were fixed with follow-on releases of the code. My network has performed and continues to perform flawlessly.

My only issue has been with some comments here in the forums indicating that an Ethernet LAN (well architected, hard wired, etc.) is somehow technically incapable of handling the traffic that the current D MRV implementation needs to flow across the network to work correctly. That is, IMHO, not correct. Their are plenty of other very valid reasons to move to DECA. That is not one of them.

Just as a test of the robustness and capability of Ethernet. Among my other D receivers I have 2 HD-DVR's, lets call them 1 and 2, they are on different floors in my home. On 1 I started watching a HD show that was recorded on 2, and on 2 I started watching a HD show that was recorded on 1. That means that on each of the Ethernet wires attached to each of the DVR's I had two streams of HD video flowing, one out and one in. All that traffic going thru my network. It worked flawlessly including all trick play features. No pixilation, no stuttering, no delays, nothing. Rock solid. So there is empirical evidence that a well architected Ethernet LAN is more than capable of running anything that the current implementation of MRV requires.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> The whole DECA cloud, when connected to your home network, acts like one big switch.


The DECA cloud is more like a smarter hub.

A switch can establish exclusive paths bidirectionally between devices; largely without contention in MRV or download scenarios. DECA offers only one path and all devices (including your broadband router) must wait their turn as directed by the DECA adapter with the strongest signal.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> BTW: I've had MRV for two years and had more issues in the first six months with ethernet than the past 18 months with DECA.


That may be more of an indictment of MRV than the networking technology used.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Yes, YMMV. I have been running MRV since the original beta using my Ethernet LAN. The only problems I have ever experienced were problems with D's software and were fixed with follow-on releases of the code. My network has performed and continues to perform flawlessly.
> 
> My only issue has been with some comments here in the forums indicating that an Ethernet LAN (well architected, hard wired, etc.) is somehow technically incapable of handling the traffic that the current D MRV implementation needs to flow across the network to work correctly. That is, IMHO, not correct. Their are plenty of other very valid reasons to move to DECA. That is not one of them.
> 
> Just as a test of the robustness and capability of Ethernet. Among my other D receivers I have 2 HD-DVR's, lets call them 1 and 2, they are on different floors in my home. On 1 I started watching a HD show that was recorded on 2, and on 2 I started watching a HD show that was recorded on 1. That means that on each of the Ethernet wires attached to each of the DVR's I had two streams of HD video flowing, one out and one in. All that traffic going thru my network. It worked flawlessly including all trick play features. No pixilation, no stuttering, no delays, nothing. Rock solid. So there is empirical evidence that a well architected Ethernet LAN is more than capable of running anything that the current implementation of MRV requires.


On this we have been agreeing, which is why I keep coming back to "cost" as being the only reason for not moving to it.
Someone with much more understanding of "networking stuff" has found something that "could become" a benefit with DECA, but like so many things, may never become an issue/need, so it still comes back to costs for me.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Someone had to PM me this:


> The DECA cloud is more like a smarter hub


I'll stand by my earlier statement as it is also used by the DirecTV engineers developing DECA.
I'll believe them over a dish sub that doesn't know what they're posting about.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> *The DECA cloud is more like a smarter hub*.
> 
> A switch can establish exclusive paths bidirectionally between devices; largely without contention in MRV or download scenarios. *DECA offers only one path and all devices *(including your broadband router) must wait their turn as directed by the DECA adapter with the strongest signal.


As I would expect from someone who doesn't actually have or use DirecTV services, this is not really a reasonable explanation.

It has very little to do with "directing paths", and mostly with the control and assignment of specific "frequency zones" for use as needed by DirecTV.

VOS has explained this verbally and with diagrams quite well in other threads, as has Smiddy - both who have taken the time to detail this more than once for the benefit of folks who actually want the facts.

There is also no "waiting" as you infer, as the IP's are within the appropriate assigned ranges, in fact, that is one of the benefits of having DECA - it is designed specifically for this purpose and within this network framework.

To the OP - good, solid Ethernet works just fine too, but has a different design for operation - it just happens to work (for now) too. But then...there's a reason DirecTV calls it "unsupported".

Since DECA has been indicated to be the "supported" framework for any new capabilities in the future...using it would seem to assure compatibility going forward over conventional network connections which happen to operate for the time being.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ... - it just happens to work (for now) too. But then...there's a reason DirecTV calls it "unsupported".


We do agree on most of the discussion but this is where I think we part company. D's chief technologist, Romulo Pontual, spent a good five or six minutes on DECA during the most recent investor briefing (see my previous post for the link and the exact point in the presentation). Did he mention anything at all about superior technology for moving video around a network or putting in place superior technology for future capabilities? No. He spent the entire time talking about the fact that it was technology that the installer community already understood and something that would be easier for them to install and support and for D to troubleshoot. Which, IMHO, is the real reason for DECA. Clearly many here disagree with that position hence the constant beating of this tired old dead horse....:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mjwagner said:


> We do agree on most of the discussion but this is where I think we part company. D's chief technologist, Romulo Pontual, spent a good five or six minutes on DECA during the most recent investor briefing (see my previous post for the link and the exact point in the presentation). *Did he mention anything at all about superior technology for moving video around a network or putting in place superior technology for future capabilities? No*.


"Superior" and "preferred for future enhancements" are two entirely different things.

Let's see where this discussion is in say....3-6 months...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Let's see where this discussion is in say....3-6 months...


Hell, let's see what happens if marketing gets their way. :lol:
"Unsupported" was like pulling teeth to get them to allow.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Hell, let's see what happens if marketing gets their way. :lol:
> "Unsupported" was like pulling teeth to get them to allow.


I can only imagine...


----------



## Barry in Conyers (Jan 14, 2008)

The original question was "*MUST I upgrade to SWM/DECA hardware for Whole Home DVR?*"

The answer to that question is NO.

I started out with MRV over DECA and switched to Ethernet to find out if the claims about the superiority of DECA were justified. On my system, there was no discernible difference in the performance of MRV over DECA or Ethernet. In the interest of full disclosure, my Ethernet network uses good hardware, is properly installed and configured and the MRV portion of the network was isolated using a 3COM GigE switch. I changed back to MRV over DECA once I had established that there was no discernible performance difference.

There is also no difference in the "support" that DirecTV provides for MRV via Ethernet or DECA; it is non-existent for either one. If you can't figure out solutions for yourself or find them here, there is certainly no point in calling DirecTV.

Just my experience and opinion, YMMV.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I found that DECA provided a Consistent Product with no Hiccups or Pixellation or "No Audio/Video Packets Found".

With DECA it just works with No Problems. I would Rate my LAN MRV at 8 and my DECA MRV at 10.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Barry in Conyers said:


> The original question was "*MUST I upgrade to SWM/DECA hardware for Whole Home DVR?*"
> 
> The answer to that question is NO.


That was the same answer given many posts ago...back in Post #4 to be exact....it just didn't seem enough for a few folks who chose to make it into a debate.

Then again...there was alot of information after all that as to why it might be prudent to have DECA, especially going into 2011 and beyond.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was the same answer given many posts ago...back in Post #4 to be exact....it just didn't seem enough for a few folks who chose to make it into a debate.
> 
> Then again...there was alot of information after all that as to why it might be prudent to have DECA, especially going into 2011 and beyond.


...and there was also lots of information that supported why you really might not need it....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mjwagner said:


> ...and there was also lots of information that supported why you really might not need it....


Agreed, you are correct.

Again, both will work at this time.

However, when we find out why DECA becomes required for more things in 2011...guess who gets to be first to say "I told you so..."? :lol:


----------



## eph3 (Dec 23, 2007)

I for one have enjoyed the debate shared here, so thanks for the opinions, insights and info shared. That, after all, is the power of this forum.

With that being said, and being much more informed from when I stirred up the subject, I do have one last clarifying statement and question. At this time I plan to "give MRV a go" with my existing hardwired network which is rock solid and proven over many years of use. However, it is a 100Mbit network not GigE.

So, I'm going to roll the dice and at least try it. If I run into performance or quality issues then I will go with DECA. And I will report back on my results. I'll be calling D* tomorrow to order the additional HD-DVR and get the ball rolling...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

eph3 said:


> So, I'm going to roll the dice and at least try it. If I run into performance or quality issues then I will go with DECA. And I will report back on my results. I'll be calling D* tomorrow to order the additional HD-DVR and get the ball rolling...


As several folks stated...there's no risk or problem using your own network (make sure when you call DirecTV you let them know its the "unsupported" MRV you wish to activate). You can always switch and have them install DECA in the future.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agreed, you are correct.
> 
> Again, both will work at this time.
> 
> However, when we find out why DECA becomes required for more things in 2011...guess who gets to be first to say "I told you so..."? :lol:


If it becomes required I hope that the CSRs and installers will know how to handle an order by that time. I tried to have it installed twice when it was cheaper now that it's double I'll stay with the cat-5. If they "require" it maybe that will lower the cost, they won't just say give us $250 or else.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

eph3 said:


> ... it is a 100Mbit network not GigE....


This will not be a problem as the Ethernet ports on the D boxes only support 100 Mbps anyway.


----------

