# MRV with DECA verses hardwired ethernet?



## JRThiele

I'm confused and I hoping somebody can help. I currently have 2 HR23-700's connected by hardwired Ethernet through my DSL modem/router. Everything works but the remote control commands lag when commanding the distant DVR. I assume this has something to do with communicating the request back and forth over the network and through the router. I also live in Portland, Oregon and can get DECA installed now if I choose. 

1. Will I benefit from a DECA install? In other words, will operating MRV over DECA be any better than my current hardwired Ethernet? Particularly any better as far a remote control lag?

2. Some have suggested to me that the data speed bottleneck is at my router and that with the proper settings in my router I can speed the communication between those two specific ports and potentially reduce the remote control lag. Something to do with port switching? Is this accurate? And if so - How do I do that?

3. When I spoke to DirecTV they implied that I should be able to just keep using my hardwired Ethernet MRV with no charge indefinitely if I want to and that the biggest limitation is that this will only work between DVR's and won't crossover to basic receivers like DECA will do. So, is it clear will I be able to keep using hardwired Ethernet MRV for free? Or, can I keep using it with the $3/month charge? Or, will I eventually have to pay for a DECA install and pay $3/month anyway so I might as well do it now?

I love MRV and want it to work flawlessly. I'm willing to pay a bit for improved performance but I don't want to waste my money.

Thanks.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Here's what I can tell you. 

First of all I can't guarantee that MRV over DECA will be an improvement for you but a lot of people say it is, and you'll be able to get support for MRV through DIRECTV if you have DECA. 

Without knowing a lot more about your router I wouldn't know if you could tweak it enough, but I can say (thanks to the network gurus here) that Ethernet itself is not really designed for a smooth video stream. DECA (or more properly, MoCA, the technology that underlies it) is designed that way from the ground up. 

If there is an option to keep wired ethernet instead of DECA then you'll definitely still have to pay the $3. There have been a lot of statements on this site saying that you'll still be able to use wired ethernet.


----------



## say-what

MRV won't be free once the Beta ends.

DECA will be the only supported option, but everything indicates that use of your own network will also be allowed just not supported

Based on the reports in the DECA first look thread, MRV performance on a DECA cloud seems to be at least as good as if not better than a properly configured, hardwired ethernet network.

I'm not sure what sort of delay you're seeing, and without knowing how your system is responding and the length of the delays, I can't say if it's responding within expected limits or not.


----------



## BudShark

What you are describing is one of the areas where DECA has a design advantage over ethernet (delays in commands while streaming video is occuring).

With that said, you should see improvement with DECA. Without knowing what kind of delays its hard to say. Will it ever be as fast as local? No. Should it be fast enough to be usable - yes. Could you get your ethernet network working? Yes, but it likely involves troubleshooting wiring, connections, router settings, etc. Something that if you aren't familair with or done a lot of may not help and is likely to be a little frustrating.

Its purely up to you (the others answered price) as to whether you go DECA or not. Obviously I am a proponent and recommend DECA.


----------



## Smuuth

I don't know how well a completely hardwired MRV setup works. When I had MRV before the DECA install, only one of my DVRs was hardwired, the other 3 were wireless N through gaming adapters.

I can say this unequivocally: MRV over DECA is flawless. Watching a recording (including trick play) from another DVR is exactly the same as watching a recording on the DVR in the same room. There are no audio or video glitches, and if it weren't for the play list telling me that it's actually located on another DVR, I would not be able to tell.


----------



## veryoldschool

The only "lag" I have here between all my receivers [even using my H21 as a client] is starting MRV. Once I'm playing a show, trickplay works just like I was watching the show straight from the DVR.
This is using DECA.
Startup lags vary with which DVR is the server, with my HR24 having the least.


----------



## JRThiele

The delays I experience are on the order of - press 30 second skip - count one, two, three - and then the video skips. My complaint is that it makes fast forwarding and skipping kind of imprecise. In other words it's hard to stop the fast forward at the correct place. The video feed itself has been relatively flawless I'd say.

Sounds like the $99 for the DECA install might make things better and I'm looking at $3/month in any event.

Thanks for the quick feedback.


----------



## dmk679

I just wired my house a few months ago:
*cat 5e - individual runs to each location
*cisco catalyst 2900 24-port switch (10/100 - old but reliable)
*linksys wrt54gl x 3 (for wireless)
*hr20 x 2 and hr23 x 1

I share lots of recordings and the delay for trickplay (HD) is slightly apparent (1s maybe - would have to get out the stopwatch honestly). For SD, barely any delay at all. Family does not even notice any delay - I notice because I pay attention.

Based on what you have shared, I would recommend a network switch. DECA sounds great, but I would rather invest money in a solution that I could use for other purposes as well (ie enhance home network).


----------



## Doug Brott

dmk679 said:


> Based on what you have shared, I would recommend a network switch. DECA sounds great, but I would rather invest money in a solution that I could use for other purposes as well (ie enhance home network).


But he's already got a solution for other purposes :shrug:

DECA is going to be the right solution for most people .. Including many of the network gurus here. IF you've already got equipment that works favorably for you, then perhaps not changing might save you some money. But if you are making an investment for the purpose of improving your DIRECTV experience .. My recommendation would be DECA all the way. There's no reason to spend money on new networking equipment for MRV .. Just go DECA and solve the problem.


----------



## Beerstalker

In my opinion though the DECA upgrade isn't always worth the money though. Sure if you get upgraded to SWM, get newer receivers, etc it's great. But for me it isn't. I already have SWM. I already have a gigabit network that works really well. The only delay I see is when I first start a remote recording it will take 10 seconds or so before it will respond to any FF/RW/Skip commands, after that it works just as well as if it were local. For me all the $150 DECA upgrade would give me is 5 DECA dongles that would be hanging off my stuff making a bigger mess.

Now if they start swapping all receivers to HR24/H24s for $150, and including one DECA bridge to my network, then I may be interested.


----------



## jdspencer

I'm hoping that MRV won't come out of beta until they fix it to allow cooperative scheduling.


----------



## Doug Brott

jdspencer said:


> I'm hoping that MRV won't come out of beta until they fix it to allow cooperative scheduling.


hope all you want, but I don't see this happening. MRV is likely to come out of beta sometime in the next 4-8 weeks. (me guessing)


----------



## Bigg

As a network, Ethernet is faster than DECA. It is the fastest, it has the lowest latency. This is not to say that DirecTV's software implementation of using Ethernet is perfect, hence varied results.

Why didn't they just do it like TiVo and give the option to copy the whole file over locally? It makes a mess with duplicate files all over the place, but it gives you local control over the file.


----------



## RAD

Bigg said:


> Why didn't they just do it like TiVo and give the option to copy the whole file over locally? It makes a mess with duplicate files all over the place, but it gives you local control over the file.


That would then not allow the non DVR HD STB's to be able to use MRV. Looking down the road it looks like that's DirecTV's direction with the RVU alliance, have a centralized server and then small/dumb clients to pull content from that server.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Bigg said:


> As a network, Ethernet is faster than DECA. It is the fastest, it has the lowest latency. This is not to say that DirecTV's software implementation of using Ethernet is perfect, hence varied results.
> 
> Why didn't they just do it like TiVo and give the option to copy the whole file over locally? It makes a mess with duplicate files all over the place, but it gives you local control over the file.


That information is only partically accurate.

In reality - for the specific application of MRV video streaming, DECA is superior to a wired ethernet setup. There have been a number of detailed posts indicating just why this is the case.

What's important is HOW the solution is used - DECA is specifically designed for MRV delivery, whereas ethernet is OK, but generic, in terms of streaming to the HD DVRs themselves.


----------



## BudShark

Bigg said:


> As a network, Ethernet is faster than DECA. [snip]


Fastest, lowest latency, is not always the best. It does not deal with things like QoS or Packet prioritization - which can be critical particularly when more streams are added. In addition, you cannot rely on what you will find in a customers network. And DirecTV does not want to be in the business of managing Cat5/6 and routers. They are doing just fine with RG6.

See this post for more details:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174343


----------



## Bigg

RAD said:


> That would then not allow the non DVR HD STB's to be able to use MRV. Looking down the road it looks like that's DirecTV's direction with the RVU alliance, have a centralized server and then small/dumb clients to pull content from that server.


Interesting point, but couldn't they have enabled both through advanced options or something so that slower networks could just pull as hard as they can and suck as much of the show locally and still allow H24's to be streaming clients?

RVU is exciting!

If the boxes are connected to the same switch, and it has the capacity to switch without bottle-necking, it will be the fastest way to connect. Of course if you have to share a CAT-5 line with 15 other things, other network traffic could get in the way.


----------



## Bigg

I read the link, and yes, for Joe six-pack, DECA is much better than some cobbled-together network, but for the people on here, it should be easy to properly engineer an Ethernet network that is just as good as DECA.


----------



## RAD

Bigg said:


> I read the link, and yes, for Joe six-pack, DECA is much better than some cobbled-together network, but for the people on here, it should be easy to properly engineer an Ethernet network that is just as good as DECA.


I would agree if every room in the home was wired with cat 5/6 cabling where a STB would be located, the wiring is there and a switch doesn't cost that much. But how many homes have ethernet cabling that would allow that, I would guess a very small minority, it's growing but has a long way to go. That's why DECA is there, MRV can be rolled out using the existing wiring plant and their tech's don't need to be networking specialist.


----------



## RAD

Bigg said:


> Interesting point, but couldn't they have enabled both through advanced options or something so that slower networks could just pull as hard as they can and suck as much of the show locally and still allow H24's to be streaming clients?
> 
> RVU is exciting!
> 
> If the boxes are connected to the same switch, and it has the capacity to switch without bottle-necking, it will be the fastest way to connect. Of course if you have to share a CAT-5 line with 15 other things, other network traffic could get in the way.


Could have DirecTV done a user option on the DVR's to copy vs. stream, yes but why should they put the extra effort into it? DirecTV came up with a DECA solution that all their customer based can use, why put extra effort into supporting something that the very small minority of their base can use and lead to support problems down the road?


----------



## Doug Brott

Bigg said:


> I read the link, and yes, for Joe six-pack, DECA is much better than some cobbled-together network, but for the people on here, it should be easy to properly engineer an Ethernet network that is just as good as DECA.


DECA is for the high-tech geek, too. If you happen to ALREADY have things in place for networking at each location, then Ethernet probably will work "just as good as DECA" with the exception perhaps being in trick play. Trick play works VERY well over DECA. I was doing this last night and the response via remote connection was phenomenal. Ethernet simply isn't guaranteed to afford you that same luxury, but it's not that far off when Ethernet is set up well with good equipment and good cabling.

I'd recommend that for anyone (techie, Joe six pack, whatever), IF you are spending money and time to get networked .. go DECA. If you already have networking capabilities setup and Ethernet is "free" then perhaps use Ethernet with the caveat that it will be slightly less responsive for MRV. The quality should still be great, but DECA slightly edges it out.


----------



## Bigg

RAD said:


> I would agree if every room in the home was wired with cat 5/6 cabling where a STB would be located, the wiring is there and a switch doesn't cost that much. But how many homes have ethernet cabling that would allow that, I would guess a very small minority, it's growing but has a long way to go. That's why DECA is there, MRV can be rolled out using the existing wiring plant and their tech's don't need to be networking specialist.


Anyone who owns their home and is serious about technology has wired for CAT-5. Yeah, it's a pain, but it's not just DirecTV that can use it. Pretty much everything needs Ethernet these days.

For regular installs that DirecTV does, yes, DECA makes sense.



RAD said:


> Could have DirecTV done a user option on the DVR's to copy vs. stream, yes but why should they put the extra effort into it? DirecTV came up with a DECA solution that all their customer based can use, why put extra effort into supporting something that the very small minority of their base can use and lead to support problems down the road?


If one DVR is getting full, copy and delete the original. Copy something off if one DVR has all the good shows, and would get tied up with one user streaming.

Companies need to stop worrying about support, and put cool features in there, and just stick a disclaimer on them that they are supported by the end-user, and while such an option is enabled, the unit won't be supported by the manufacturer (or DirecTV in this case). Basically how MRV is now.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

The majority of homes built in the past 20 years have base coax, either R59 or RG6, running to most locations/rooms.

Very few have cat5/cat6.

With SWiM as the foundation, deploying a high bandwidth media-streaming solution that works on existing coax (which satisfies the majority of homeowners and apartments) provides a simple, fast, and cost-effect way to deploy Multi-Room Viewing. Coupled with DECA technology (which is now found internal of the latest HD Hx24 devices, it turns MRV delivery into almost a plug and play situation. External adapters also support previous generation HD DVRs and receivers, making it backward-compatible.

In comparison, futzing around with 1000 combinations of Ethernet, wireless, and/or powerline connectivity, all with variations on bandwidth support (DECA is rated in the 200Mbps-300Mbps range) may be nothing more than just a quick-fix way to get some early adopters and techno-types there.

When you then look at the financial considerations - an average customer or even some early adopters - accepting a $148 package to get everything working, and working at peak efficiency without all the fuss - SWiM/DECA seems like a solid solution - and since its the only one that will get support from DirecTV going forward - the only prudent way for the majority of people.


----------



## GutBomb

Bigg said:


> As a network, Ethernet is faster than DECA. It is the fastest, it has the lowest latency. This is not to say that DirecTV's software implementation of using Ethernet is perfect, hence varied results.
> 
> Why didn't they just do it like TiVo and give the option to copy the whole file over locally? It makes a mess with duplicate files all over the place, but it gives you local control over the file.


Once you actually move the content from one DVR to another the broadcast flags must be honored. Let me tell you that MRV on the tivo sucks because of the broadcast flag and copyonce.


----------



## veryoldschool

[fanboy hat on]
I've been using DECA for maybe six months and simply wouldn't go back to my ethernet setup for MRV.
During this time, I've had to reboot one receiver because the DECA didn't config after a download. ONCE.
I've had to reboot my router many more times than this before moving to DECA.
Once MRV starts up [yes there still is a lag starting] I can't tell whether I'm watching the recording locally or remotely.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> Very few have cat5/cat6.


Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack. With more people ditching their landlines for cell service, there's some unused wiring there that can be "re-purposed."


----------



## RAD

DirecTV3049 said:


> Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years home is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack. With more people ditching their landlines for cell service, there's some unused wiring there that can be "re-purposed."


But to all the places where you want to put a receiver? In homes I purchased in 2001 and 2006 only the master bedroom had a phone jack, the other three bedrooms only a coax if even that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DirecTV3049 said:


> Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years home is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack.


...rendering it pretty much useless for this application, and still not addressing the video streaming needs to the best levels.


----------



## RAD

DirecTV3049 said:


> Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack. With more people ditching their landlines for cell service, there's some unused wiring there that can be "re-purposed."





hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...rendering it pretty much useless for this application, and still not addressing the video streaming needs to the best levels.


Maybe yes, maybe no. I've split our two pairs on a cat 5 that was there for phone and used that for networking, have HR2X's hung off three drops like that with no problems. The best way to do it, nope, but doable if there wasn't an alternative.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> But to all the places where you want to put a receiver?


Sure. To use PPV, you may already have a telephone outlet nearby to your receiver.

When I built my house in 2000, the builder ran two coax lines and two telephone lines.

On coax line and one telephone line to the master bedroom (so same location); one coax line and one telephone line to the "great room" (living room; kitchen; dining area combined).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DirecTV3049 said:


> Sure. To use PPV, you may already have a telephone outlet nearby to your receiver.
> 
> When I built my house in 2000, the builder ran two coax lines and two telephone lines.
> 
> On coax line and one telephone line to the master bedroom (so same location); one coax line and one telephone line to the "great room" (living room; kitchen; dining area combined).


I bet duct tape and string may come into play too....but then...there's a real solution...and phone lines aren't part of it.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> Maybe yes, maybe no. I've split our two pairs on a cat 5 that was there for phone and used that for networking, have HR2X's hung off three drops like that with no problems. The best way to do it, nope, but doable if there wasn't an alternative.


Ah, the poor man's ethernet!!


----------



## DirecTV3049

> I bet duct tape and string may come into play too


Nah, duct tape and string are just too tacky!!



> ....but then...there's a real solution...and phone lines aren't part of it.


Yeah, because using equipment that's already bought and paid and is still functional - versus having to shell out for new stuff - is always a bad thing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DirecTV3049 said:


> Yeah, because using equipment that's already bought and paid and is still functional - versus having to shell out for new stuff - is always a bad thing.


Very true.

But then again...using equipment and connectivity from this millennium is preferred.


----------



## Movieman

I honestly like the response times I am getting using ethernet adapters for MRV. I dont have DECA and from what I have read dont find much of a difference from my current experience to anyone else. I havent seen a post that shows me that DECA offers more services through MRV than powerline adapters or any other configuration. Only real differences im reading about MRV is through the new HR24-H24 combinations.


----------



## RAD

DirecTV3049 said:


> Sure. To use PPV, you may already have a telephone outlet nearby to your receiver.


Don't you ever look at all the posts from folks about how they don't have a phone jack near their receiver? My son has three STB's and not one connected to a phone jack, I have two that don't. With SWiM, DECA and a broadband connection none of the receivers need a phone line for PPV, boxes can use the broadband connection to call home on.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> But then again...using equipment and connectivity from this millennium is preferred.


Sure is . . . by the people trying to sell you more, better, and new and improved stuff. But, that's how a lot of people got in the jam they're currently in. 

We used to be a nation of people who twiddled and fiddled with stuff.


----------



## harsh

DirecTV3049 said:


> Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years home is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack.


Telephone wiring is CAT3. Like RG59 in place of RG6, it may work in a pinch, but it isn't rated for it. Unfortunately, much of it was only two pair.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Movieman said:


> I honestly like the response times I am getting using ethernet adapters for MRV. I dont have DECA and from what I have read dont find much of a difference from my current experience to anyone else. I havent seen a post that shows me that DECA offers more services through MRV than powerline adapters or any other configuration. Only real differences im reading about MRV is through the new HR24-H24 combinations.


Sorta kinda.

I have got through the process (over time) of elevating my MRV experience, starting with 802.11n, then to Ethernet, then to DECA. I saw an improvement at each level. DECA has been the most solid and trouble-free.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> Don't you ever look at all the posts from folks about how they don't have a phone jack near their receiver?


Was his house built in the last 20 years?

Look, I didn't get all prissy and point out that MY OWN house didn't have MORE coax cable run than Cat 5e, when THAT was stated by another poster.

I merely pointed out that practically every house built in the past 20 years HAS Cat 5e run in it. And, often, that run terminates in a convenient place for use by a DirecTV receiver. And if you've given up using POTS - as many people have - well, then, you might want to consider using that free ethernet you're just ignoring.

Is it ALWAYS true that you'll have a convenient unused telephone jack nearby? No. Just like it's not ALWAYS true that coax is run to every place it needs to be either.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> Telephone wiring is CAT3


Not in this corner of the world it ain't.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In reality - for the specific application of MRV video streaming, DECA is superior to a wired ethernet setup. There have been a number of detailed posts indicating just why this is the case.


Most of the arguments I've seen are flawed in that they claim that DECA thoughtfully addresses issues that simply don't exist in switched Ethernet MRV (collisions, contention). While I like the idea of DECA and recognize its suitability for the task, I remain unconvinced of its inherent superiority over switched Ethernet for MRV or any other application.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Most of the arguments I've seen are flawed in that they claim that DECA thoughtfully addresses issues that simply don't exist in switched Ethernet MRV (collisions, contention). While I like the idea of DECA and recognize its suitability for the task, I remain unconvinced of its inherent superiority over switched Ethernet for MRV or any other application.


That's fine that you are not convinced.

Those of us who actually have used it for some time are convinced.

Our perspectives are based on experience with DECA, as opposed to speculation or theory.


----------



## Movieman

harsh said:


> Most of the arguments I've seen are flawed in that they claim that DECA thoughtfully addresses issues that simply don't exist in switched Ethernet MRV (collisions, contention). While I like the idea of DECA and recognize its suitability for the task, I remain unconvinced of its inherent superiority over switched Ethernet for MRV or any other application.


Sort of my take. I dont have DECA and havent used it but based on posts here my playback is about the same now as I read about DECA experiences. I think the only setup I am reading different are those with whole home solutions.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's fine that you are not convinced.
> 
> Those of us who actually have used it for some time are convinced.
> 
> Our perspectives are based on experience with DECA, as opposed to speculation or theory.


I do agree though as I have been on the site for a little while and saw the progressive experience getting better but still dont think that DECA is so far great than for example powerline bridges that I use. At first I saw noticeable differences in the posts but now my playback and other features seem to be the same as those that are using DECA. (as far as only reading posts go)


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Movieman said:


> I do agree though as I have been on the site for a little while and saw the progressive experience getting better but still dont think that DECA is so far great than for example powerline bridges that I use. At first I saw noticeable differences in the posts but now my playback and other features seem to be the same as those that are using DECA. (as far as only reading posts go)


I think it is fair to say that wired Ethernet compared with DECA is the smallest gap. However, as Doug has pointed out several times now, when you use MRV with trickplay, and other such specific MRV activities....DECA reaps the best results.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those of us who actually have used it for some time are convinced.
> 
> Our perspectives are based on experience with DECA, as opposed to speculation or theory.


It was my understanding that you're previous MRV experience was "a wireless set-up with mixed "G" and "N" adapters" as opposed to switched Ethernet. Did you also compare switched Ethernet for perspective?

In the DECA "First Look", dave29 said DECA was "as if the receiver was now hardwired with CAT5".


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> It was my understanding that you're previous MRV experience was "a wireless set-up with mixed "G" and "N" adapters" as opposed to switched Ethernet. Did you also compare switched Ethernet for perspective?
> 
> In the DECA "First Look", dave29 said DECA was "as if the receiver was now hardwired with CAT5".


My experience was a pathway through multiple connections, starting with wireless "N", and ending up with DECA for some time now.

Ethernet hard-wired here was similar to what others reported - basically very similar to DECA....until you compare the trick play with MRV....then DECA wins as the best viewing experience.


----------



## irlspotter

I was having some trick-play lags on my CAT5E hard wired network with MRV until I changed batteries in my remote. That fixed trick-play delays other than when first selecting a remote DVR recording. It might be that simple!!


----------



## carl6

With regard to "most homes built in the last 20 years", I would be very surprised if 5% (at most) had anything more than Cat 3 run, and that for phones, not ethernet. Last 10 years, maybe 10%. Last 5 years, maybe 25%.

With regard to splitting pairs out of a phone line (regardless if Cat 3, 5 or 6), so that the same run is supporting both voice and ethernet - yeah you can get away with it, but I guarantee you will have a measurable and quantifiable degradation of your ethernet system. I'll admit I've done it (for an urgent temporary fix), but I'll also argue it is a very poor, and unprofessional, hack.

With regard to DECA versus a good, hard wired, Cat 5e network (without hacks or sloppy work), DECA wins (from my own personal experience).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

irlspotter said:


> I was having some trick-play lags on my CAT5E hard wired network with MRV until I changed batteries in my remote. That fixed trick-play delays other than when first selecting a remote DVR recording. It might be that simple!!


I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the best batteries in a remote won't address delays in trickplay based on network traffic and data collisions.


----------



## RAD

carl6 said:


> With regard to splitting pairs out of a phone line (regardless if Cat 3, 5 or 6), so that the same run is supporting both voice and ethernet - yeah you can get away with it, but I guarantee you will have a measurable and quantifiable degradation of your ethernet system. I'll admit I've done it (for an urgent temporary fix), but I'll also argue it is a very poor, and unprofessional, hack.


I agree that it's not the best solution but sorry I hate it when someone says they "guarantee you will have a measurable and quantifiable degradation of your ethernet system" when someone says they do it and haven't had any problems. Maybe it's I just have when someone makes absolute comments like that but due to limitations I had to live with I've done that with my current and prior homes and have had ZERO problems doing so and have NO performance problems either with MRV or from my file, mail web or print servers.


----------



## ricochet

Has anyone tried to use MRV on a DVR that was also downloading a VOD show? Assuming this is allowed, I suspect it is a situation where DECA with its built in QoS features works better than a basic Ethernet setup.


----------



## Movieman

ricochet said:


> Has anyone tried to use MRV on a DVR that was also downloading a VOD show? Assuming this is allowed, I suspect it is a situation where DECA with its built in QoS features works better than a basic Ethernet setup.


Now that I have Directv again I have been using VOD heavy to catch up on the Tudors and yes I have seen no difference in trickplay. My trickplay with powerline bridges works pretty damn good. When MRV first came out it was piss poor but now it really works well. Autocorrects nicely and FF works good too so I have no complaints but again never have used DECA so dont know how different it is. I have to defer to others on that one.


----------



## Bigg

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The majority of homes built in the past 20 years have base coax, either R59 or RG6, running to most locations/rooms.
> 
> Very few have cat5/cat6.
> 
> With SWiM as the foundation, deploying a high bandwidth media-streaming solution that works on existing coax (which satisfies the majority of homeowners and apartments) provides a simple, fast, and cost-effect way to deploy Multi-Room Viewing. Coupled with DECA technology (which is now found internal of the latest HD Hx24 devices, it turns MRV delivery into almost a plug and play situation. External adapters also support previous generation HD DVRs and receivers, making it backward-compatible.
> 
> In comparison, futzing around with 1000 combinations of Ethernet, wireless, and/or powerline connectivity, all with variations on bandwidth support (DECA is rated in the 200Mbps-300Mbps range) may be nothing more than just a quick-fix way to get some early adopters and techno-types there.
> 
> When you then look at the financial considerations - an average customer or even some early adopters - accepting a $148 package to get everything working, and working at peak efficiency without all the fuss - SWiM/DECA seems like a solid solution - and since its the only one that will get support from DirecTV going forward - the only prudent way for the majority of people.


DECA is HUGE for people who are either not technologically inclined or don't own the building they live in (the first one gets like 95% of people, the second gets a couple more %, there's probably 30% overlap). But if neither of those things are true, then they would already have hard-wired Ethernet by their TV anyways. Not powerline, not wireless, CAT-5e or higher.

I'm not talking about homes that were pre-wired I'm talking about pulling wires like we did when cable internet came into our town. No coax by the computer + no ethernet = 1000' roll of ethernet and some jacks.

Most houses now use home-run CAT-5 for telephone. The problem with re-purposing is that you have to get to all the jacks to re-wire them, which could be hard when there's furniture in front of most of them. The right way to do it would be to put a patch panel at the, home run point, along with the networking gear (switch, router, cable modem, server, etc.), and then patch telephone to one location for a DECT 6 system that runs off of the one physical line, activate other locations as-needed for Ethernet, and leave the rest for future expansion.

CAT-3 will handle 10mbit ethernet, 100 if you're lucky. No good for MRV, would be fine for internet access (DoD, Blu-Ray Netflix, etc).


----------



## Bigg

RAD said:


> I agree that it's not the best solution but sorry I hate it when someone says they "guarantee you will have a measurable and quantifiable degradation of your ethernet system" when someone says they do it and haven't had any problems. Maybe it's I just have when someone makes absolute comments like that but due to limitations I had to live with I've done that with my current and prior homes and have had ZERO problems doing so and have NO performance problems either with MRV or from my file, mail web or print servers.


It's OK if you have to, but

A) You should only need one active phone jack in the house, as most phones these days can support 6-12 handsets from one base. A splitter with the corded phone next to the base works so that you have POTS when the power goes out.

B) Always make sure to use regular 8p8c straight-through wiring with a patch panel and use adapter cables to patch the shoestring-and-bubble-gum solutions so that you can pull them off if the thing starts to go wonky. Hard-wiring something like this would be really dumb. You can make a patch cable with a telephone cable and a CAT-5 cable coming out of the same jack for each end to stack all the signals together in one cable.

Unless the run is short if the phone rings, your raw throughput will go way down. Will it effect your experience? Try it out and see. Solution: make sure no one calls you while you are streaming TV.


----------



## leww37334

DECA vs. Ethernet

performance - DECA wins (based on all information I have seen)

cost - DECA will cost an extra $100- $150 over existing ethernet (if you have to run new ethernet, then that will cost also)

reliability - DECA adds several new adapters (unless you buy HR-24's) plus a new switch, all of this new hardware adds new points of potential failure that aren't there with ethernet.


----------



## RAD

Bigg said:


> It's OK if you have to, but
> 
> A) You should only need one active phone jack in the house, as most phones these days can support 6-12 handsets from one base. A splitter with the corded phone next to the base works so that you have POTS when the power goes out.
> 
> B) Always make sure to use regular 8p8c straight-through wiring with a patch panel and use adapter cables to patch the shoestring-and-bubble-gum solutions so that you can pull them off if the thing starts to go wonky. Hard-wiring something like this would be really dumb. You can make a patch cable with a telephone cable and a CAT-5 cable coming out of the same jack for each end to stack all the signals together in one cable.
> 
> Unless the run is short if the phone rings, your raw throughput will go way down. Will it effect your experience? Try it out and see. Solution: make sure no one calls you while you are streaming TV.


Sorry, 6 active phone jacks, 4 of those lines being split for voice data on the same cable. Been using MRV since it first appears back in 2008 and no problems what so ever when the phone rings. And no I didn't get fancy with patch panels, pulled two pairs off the punch down, used 3M splicers to add a 3 ft length of cat 5 that connected down to some RJ45 jacks that I then patch to my switch. Yes I know this sucks, breaks all the rules but it works just fine, at least for me, never said it would work for everyone.


----------



## Doug Brott

DirecTV3049 said:


> Actually, I'd bet that practically EVERY house built in the past 20 years is wired with Cat5e . . . it just happens to be run to a telephone jack. With more people ditching their landlines for cell service, there's some unused wiring there that can be "re-purposed."


Not around here .. Fortunately they installed 6 pair wire, but it was all Cat3 .. I had one spot that was a bit difficult to get to, I was able to fish Cat5 in myself after the fact.

House was built in 1997 and the entire neighborhood was without .. There was an option to install network into a couple of locations, but not entire house.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Most of the arguments I've seen are flawed in that they claim that DECA thoughtfully addresses issues that simply don't exist in switched Ethernet MRV (collisions, contention). While I like the idea of DECA and recognize its suitability for the task, I remain unconvinced of its inherent superiority over switched Ethernet for MRV or any other application.


Then don't use it .. I've used both .. DECA generally gives me better satisfaction in day-to-day use.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> In the DECA "First Look", dave29 said DECA was "as if the receiver was now hardwired with CAT5".


It was also a "First Look" .. We are now well past that point and not only have more use under our belts, but well thought out theory as to why it should (and does in my experience) work better.

Knock it all you want .. I doubt you find a single person that will claim DECA is worse than Ethernet (regardless of "speed").


----------



## Doug Brott

leww37334 said:


> DECA vs. Ethernet
> 
> performance - DECA wins (based on all information I have seen)
> 
> cost - DECA will cost an extra $100- $150 over existing ethernet (if you have to run new ethernet, then that will cost also)
> 
> reliability - DECA adds several new adapters (unless you buy HR-24's) plus a new switch, all of this new hardware adds new points of potential failure that aren't there with ethernet.


This is probably a pretty good simple summary .. as for the reliability concern, just remember that DECA is supported so in the latter scenario of "potential failure" folk could potentially be better of with DECA than home networking anyway .. at worst, it's a wash between the two.

As I said earlier .. IF you have a nice network already set up for each location you need, you can likely get by with a home network setup and be fine. That may not always be true, but is true now .. IF you don't have everything networked (regardless of whether you are Joe six pack or a Network Guru) and you are going to install networking, DECA is simply the right way to go.


----------



## Movieman

Doug Brott said:


> It was also a "First Look" .. We are now well past that point and not only have more use under our belts, but well thought out theory as to why it should (and does in my experience) work better.
> 
> Knock it all you want ..* I doubt you find a single person that will claim DECA is worse than Ethernet *(regardless of "speed").


And I would agree. No posts show that DECA is worse but some cases I think it may be slightly exaggerated that DECA is that much greater that ethernet connections. In the long run you are correct that DECA (either through the new hardware or through equipment upgrades) is going to be the better option but for those of us running ethernet that works extremely well there is no urgency to spend the extra money for when existing equipment can work just fine. Some posts on here are just claiming a little more than what there might be and put people in a position to think that they have to spend extra money right now to get something MRV working when it may not be the case.


----------



## BudShark

I have yet to see anyone suggest a person rip out a perfectly working Ethernet solution and put in DECA.

The most that has ever been recommended is IF you are unhappy with your current Ethernet solution, the money/time spent troubleshooting that may be better spent giving DirecTV the $150 and upgrading your system to a preferred/supported SWM/DECA solution.

I will say, I agree with Doug though. I haven't seen anyone yet say DECA is worse than Ethernet. I have seen many people say DECA is better than their previous Ethernet setup.


----------



## chedlin

I am a network engineer and I have also done extensive VoIP development and understand latency sensitive applications.

DECA sounds great, it provides a simple installation that even DirecTV techs can get right. It is engineered from the ground up to do what it needs to. On the other hand it wasn't done because Ethernet wasn't up to the task. If I were DirecTV this is the only way I would support it. Cat5 is fragile (I have seen drop cables stop working many times), and people will always find a way to mess it up.

If I didn't have a network, or had problems (Many if not all consumer Ethernet switches are garbage. I use them, but that's because I'm not willing to spend $500 on something good) I would see DECA as a valid option.

On the other hand, my DVR's are two switches apart and I beat my network all day long. I have NEVER disliked MRV, it passes the wife test, and trick play works great. There is a delay when watching network shows, and that is all I can say for sure. When fast forwarding I haven't decided if the displayed frame rate is the same or not. I could build some tests around the used bandwidth and the latency, but I have kids and my time not at work is too valuable.

For the people that have upgraded to DECA, is that using entirely the same hardware? I have an HR22 (I wasn't paying attention at Best Buy last month, but as far as I have read the only difference are the BBC's and I have SWiM) and an HR23. I could imagine a couple of HR24's would make a big improvement.


----------



## BudShark

chedlin said:


> I am a network engineer and I have also done extensive VoIP development and understand latency sensitive applications.
> 
> DECA sounds great, it provides a simple installation that even DirecTV techs can get right. It is engineered from the ground up to do what it needs to. On the other hand it wasn't done because Ethernet wasn't up to the task. If I were DirecTV this is the only way I would support it. Cat5 is fragile (I have seen drop cables stop working many times), and people will always find a way to mess it up.
> 
> If I didn't have a network, or had problems (Many if not all consumer Ethernet switches are garbage. I use them, but that's because I'm not willing to spend $500 on something good) I would see DECA as a valid option.
> 
> On the other hand, my DVR's are two switches apart and I beat my network all day long. I have NEVER disliked MRV, it passes the wife test, and trick play works great. There is a delay when watching network shows, and that is all I can say for sure. When fast forwarding I haven't decided if the displayed frame rate is the same or not. I could build some tests around the used bandwidth and the latency, but I have kids and my time not at work is too valuable.
> 
> For the people that have upgraded to DECA, is that using entirely the same hardware? I have an HR22 (I wasn't paying attention at Best Buy last month, but as far as I have read the only difference are the BBC's and I have SWiM) and an HR23. I could imagine a couple of HR24's would make a big improvement.


HR24s make a nice speed improvement. They also look nicer. 

In terms of functionality? No. The only real advantage is you don't have the DECA dongle because its built in. Otherwise a conversion to DECA of the HR22/HR23 would have the same net result as putting in HR24s.


----------



## Thaedron

veryoldschool said:


> The only "lag" I have here between all my receivers [even using my H21 as a client] is starting MRV. Once I'm playing a show, trickplay works just like I was watching the show straight from the DVR.
> This is using DECA.
> Startup lags vary with which DVR is the server, with my HR24 having the least.


I get very similar performance with my wired ethernet.

YMMV.


----------



## Bigg

RAD said:


> Sorry, 6 active phone jacks, 4 of those lines being split for voice data on the same cable. Been using MRV since it first appears back in 2008 and no problems what so ever when the phone rings. And no I didn't get fancy with patch panels, pulled two pairs off the punch down, used 3M splicers to add a 3 ft length of cat 5 that connected down to some RJ45 jacks that I then patch to my switch. Yes I know this sucks, breaks all the rules but it works just fine, at least for me, never said it would work for everyone.


Eh, if it works, I guess.

You only need one jack.

You're lucky. Your network *IS* taking a hit when the phone rings, it's just function enough to keep streaming. Which, if that's all you're doing on those lines, I guess means there's no reason to fix it.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Knock it all you want .. I doubt you find a single person that will claim DECA is worse than Ethernet (regardless of "speed").


I'm pretty sure that nobody is knocking DECA. Like the HR24, there are too few installations out there to be able to develop a collective opinion.


----------



## adamson

My situation is pretty nice, deca right now is not for me. Call me stupid on this, Im using a 8 port switch some feeding a few standard receivers and the rest dvrs dual cabled. If I got deca what happens to wires at point of entry, are some unused?, dismantle issues? Dish Im using is a Slimline 5 no swm. And overall for me I will not need deca, I can boast about my home and it is for sale too (going south)...lol. Anyway I have dual RG6/one cat 5 on nearly every wall in over 3000sq ft of living space. I just spent 245 bucks to remove 4 cat 5e wires from telephone interface, terminate/rewire jacks at 4 locations. I have heard about sharing a wire for phone and internet and to me thats just beyond...Jacks should be dedicated as I see it. Wires coming into the house from dish through siding/wall and all walls sealed on interior. If I just end up with a few dead wires from the dish because of deca, I don't want it.


----------



## BudShark

upmichigan said:


> My situation is pretty nice, deca right now is not for me. Call me stupid on this, Im using a 8 port switch some feeding a few standard receivers and the rest dvrs dual cabled. If I got deca what happens to wires at point of entry, are some unused?, dismantle issues? Dish Im using is a Slimline 5 no swm. And overall for me I will not need deca, I can boast about my home and it is for sale too (going south)...lol. Anyway I have dual RG6/one cat 5 on nearly every wall in over 3000sq ft of living space. I just spent 245 bucks to remove 4 cat 5e wires from telephone interface, terminate/rewire jacks at 4 locations. I have heard about sharing a wire for phone and internet and to me thats just beyond...Jacks should be dedicated as I see it. Wires coming into the house from dish through siding/wall and all walls sealed on interior. If I just end up with a few dead wires from the dish because of deca, I don't want it.


In your case, you would end up with dead wires going DECA. A full DECA implementation to an HR would reduce you from 2 RG6/1 Cat6 to a single RG6 cable.


----------



## millervt

perhaps slightly off topic, but I see what I think are the right kind of people posting to answer this...but I need to hook up my recently installed HD DVR to the internet so I can do "on demand" stuff..and the room with the DVR doesn't have ethernet access.

So, I can either go wireless or powerline. I'd prefer powerline (I think), but I was wondering what speed adapters I need - are the 85mbs fast enough (recognizing that you never get that throughput) for these purposes? 

On the other hand, I'm intrigued by networking all my receivers together with ethernet for MRV purposes, instead of shelling out $150 to directtv for DECA, although I'm not sure about which makes sense at the moment, but if that might happen should I upgrade my powerline adapters to 200mbs+ "just in case"? 

thanks!


----------



## David MacLeod

stay far away from powerline.


----------



## chuck5395

David MacLeod said:


> stay far away from powerline.


I installed 85Mbs PowerLine adapters awhile back. Worked fine for VOD but MVR stutters and freezes. Might be because the best throughput I can get is 45Mbs and it seems to average at 38Mbs. I'm very close to placing the call for DECA.


----------



## bobnielsen

YMMV, but for me 85 Mbps powerline worked fine for On Demand and for music and pictures with Media Share. Media Share video worked great to one location but not the other. MRV would work for SD programs only. Wireless (I tried both G and N) was practically useless. DECA and MoCA (on the OTA cables) work great for everything. I relocated the powerline adapters to link in another computer and Directv2PC works most of the time.


----------



## veryoldschool

millervt said:


> perhaps slightly off topic, but I see what I think are the right kind of people posting to answer this...but I need to hook up my recently installed HD DVR to the internet so I can do "on demand" stuff..and the room with the DVR doesn't have ethernet access.
> 
> So, I can either go wireless or powerline. I'd prefer powerline (I think), but I was wondering what speed adapters I need - are the 85mbs fast enough (recognizing that you never get that throughput) for these purposes?
> 
> On the other hand, I'm intrigued by networking all my receivers together with ethernet for MRV purposes, instead of shelling out $150 to directtv for DECA, although I'm not sure about which makes sense at the moment, but if that might happen should I upgrade my powerline adapters to 200mbs+ "just in case"?
> 
> thanks!


I would first look at your costs for each option. Figure out what each will cost you.
Powerline & Wireless can be iffy. Some have them working fine, and others have problems.
Hardwired is the best solution [most consistent results for everyone].


----------



## David MacLeod

powerlines have to be on same circuit, waste of money and time.
this is where deca is going to shine, places where people are trying to make (force) powerline and/or wireless to work.


----------



## harsh

millervt said:


> So, I can either go wireless or powerline. I'd prefer powerline (I think), but I was wondering what speed adapters I need - are the 85mbs fast enough (recognizing that you never get that throughput) for these purposes?


This really isn't the right thread to discuss this, but unless your internet connection is >50Mbps, HomePlug AV or Wireless N (possibly even G if you have a <10Mbps connection) should be more than sufficient.


----------



## Doug Brott

Do not use powerline or wireless for MRV .. You will not be happy with it over the long term.

If you do use these technologies, they will sort of work, but the experience will be worse than either wired or DECA. Spending money now on additional powerline or wireless equipment will only leave you more frustrated down the road.

NOW, if you don't intend to use these technologies for MRV, then you should be fine. But if the purpose is MRV .. don't use them.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> This really isn't the right thread to discuss this, but unless your internet connection is >50Mbps, HomePlug AV or Wireless N (possibly even G if you have a <10Mbps connection) should be more than sufficient.


It doesn't matter how fast the powerline or wireless is .. for MRV, the experience will be disappointing with these technologies.


----------



## harsh

David MacLeod said:


> powerlines have to be on same circuit, waste of money and time.


Here's a white paper that goes a long way towards debunking that myth: http://www.jdhunt.com/homeplug/aug07/PLC_Cross-phase_Coupling.pdf


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> It doesn't matter how fast the powerline or wireless is .. for MRV, the experience will be disappointing with these technologies.


Have you tried HomePlug AV with MRV? It boasts a QoS scheme that is similar to that employed by DECA and both are rated at 100Mbps typical throughput.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> Have you tried HomePlug AV with MRV? It boasts a QoS scheme that is similar to that employed by DECA and both are rated at 100Mbps typical throughput.


Have you tried any method of DirecTV MRV?

Based on what has been written and tested:

Best:
DECA (supported, and no reports of inconsistent or poor results)

Better:
Hardwire Ethernet (not-supported, generally works, some reports of inconsistent results due to wiring or router issues)

Not recommended due to problematic results from users/testers:
Wireless (G/N)
Powerline


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> Have you tried HomePlug AV with MRV? It boasts a QoS scheme that is similar to that employed by DECA and both are rated at 100Mbps typical throughput.





BudShark said:


> Have you tried any method of DirecTV MRV?


Wouldn't you need to actually HAVE DirecTV service first?
Someone posting their "opinion" about something they have ZERO experience with, is simply doing a disservice to all those reading their post(s) IMO.


----------



## ffemtreed

what I don't understand is everyone complaining about router configs and router issues and etc for MRV. 

MRV is LAN traffic and NEVER sees any routing functions or router configs. 

So you might say that most home switches have a router built into them for broadband connections. I will agree with you, but I would qualify that by saying on those same devices that 99% of them don't have ANY settings that will affect local LAN traffic, sure you can screw up your broadband internet, but there is virtually nothing you can configure on those "routers" that will affect you. 

The worst thing you can do is turn off DHCP which would make it completly fail (not be slow or intermittent or occasionally break up the video). 

in other words, other than plugging the cables into each end there is NOTHING to configure that would screw with the speed or capabilites of your home network.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Have you tried HomePlug AV with MRV? It boasts a QoS scheme that is similar to that employed by DECA and both are rated at 100Mbps typical throughput.


So you're happy to applaud the HomePlug AV (which is rarely talked about here), but admonish the HR24 & DECA because "there are too few installations out there." Are you just being obstinate for the heck of it?


----------



## BudShark

ffemtreed said:


> what I don't understand is everyone complaining about router configs and router issues and etc for MRV.
> 
> MRV is LAN traffic and NEVER sees any routing functions or router configs.
> 
> So you might say that most home switches have a router built into them for broadband connections. I will agree with you, but I would qualify that by saying on those same devices that 99% of them don't have ANY settings that will affect local LAN traffic, sure you can screw up your broadband internet, but there is virtually nothing you can configure on those "routers" that will affect you.
> 
> The worst thing you can do is turn off DHCP which would make it completly fail (not be slow or intermittent or occasionally break up the video).
> 
> in other words, other than plugging the cables into each end there is NOTHING to configure that would screw with the speed or capabilites of your home network.


Thats not entirely true. The router acts as a switch. The switch can have QoS and other traffic prioritization. They aren't dumb devices - they do process the packets. Is it commonplace for a setting to affect it? No. Is it commonplace for a firmware or particular brand to handle specific packets or data flow differently? Yes. Thats all that is being pointed out.

An ethernet network is not the same from installation to installation. A DECA installation IS and can thus have a guaranteed performance and result, supported by DirecTV.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

David MacLeod said:


> powerlines have to be on same circuit, (...)


This is not true. I have three powerline adapters on three different circuits. They should be on the same leg in the breaker box but even that isn't 100% necessary.


----------



## ffemtreed

BudShark said:


> Thats not entirely true. The router acts as a switch. The switch can have QoS and other traffic prioritization. They aren't dumb devices - they do process the packets. Is it commonplace for a setting to affect it? No. Is it commonplace for a firmware or particular brand to handle specific packets or data flow differently? Yes. Thats all that is being pointed out.
> 
> An ethernet network is not the same from installation to installation. A DECA installation IS and can thus have a guaranteed performance and result, supported by DirecTV.


Router acts as a switch???? what are you talking about, that doesn't make any sense at all???? Routers have nothing to do with local ethernet traffic. The ONLY time a router becomes involved is when ethernet traffic needs to move from the local network to another network.

so in 99% of all the home broadband routers, the only time the actual routing functionality of the device is when it needs to move local LAN traffic to the WAN (broadband) port for INTERNET ACCESS. Communications between two DVR's will NEVER cross from the switch to the router side of the device.

I was not debating the merits of either solution, I was just pointing out that Router compatibility and misconfigured routers is NOT a valid reason for concern about using MRV over Ethernet.


----------



## veryoldschool

Stuart Sweet said:


> This is not true. I have three powerline adapters on three different circuits. They should be on the same leg in the breaker box but even that isn't 100% necessary.


As we keep posting, powerline adapter performance varies due to the house wiring they use.
"RF" carried over romex works about as well as DSL does over normal phone lines. Neither "wire" was made/designed for this use. Yes, with some smart engineering both have been able to carry signals beyond what "they should". How well they do this isn't constant though for everyone.


----------



## BudShark

ffemtreed said:


> Router acts as a switch???? what are you talking about, that doesn't make any sense at all???? Routers have nothing to do with local ethernet traffic. The ONLY time a router becomes involved is when ethernet traffic needs to move from the local network to another network.
> 
> so in 99% of all the home broadband routers, the only time the actual routing functionality of the device is when it needs to move local LAN traffic to the WAN (broadband) port for INTERNET ACCESS. Communications between two DVR's will NEVER cross from the switch to the router side of the device.
> 
> I was not debating the merits of either solution, I was just pointing out that Router compatibility and misconfigured routers is NOT a valid reason for concern about using MRV over Ethernet.


Dude.... If you go and buy a Linksys Router or a Netgear Router at Best Buy that you find in 99% of the houses what do you get? A 4 port switch with a Router.

So its 1 box, commonly referred to as a Router, but for the sake of keeping things on the up and up - we'll use the device name.

Say you have a Linksys WRT610N. That Linksys has packet processing capabilities built into the Switch firmware. Each packet is analyzed for destination MAC, header, and packet type. If you happen to have turned on other functionality like the WMM (Wireless MultiMedia) or QoS further processing of the packet occurs. All of this is highly dependent on the firmware version of the WRT610N. If you happen to have a D-Link you'll have different results.

Sorry for the use of the word Router - but last I checked that was the name on the box of the WRT610N.


----------



## David MacLeod

lot of houses up in this area built in early 70's were wired 440 service, many of these have issues even on the same leg.
even some 220 ins have issue with a 220 gfi outlet using twin legs on board.
netgear themselves has said in the past use the same circuit.
introduce a ground issue anywheres and its bad.
these are a bandaid solution at best.


----------



## Herdfan

BudShark said:


> Thats not entirely true. The router acts as a switch. The switch can have QoS and other traffic prioritization. They aren't dumb devices - they do process the packets. Is it commonplace for a setting to affect it? No. Is it commonplace for a firmware or particular brand to handle specific packets or data flow differently? Yes. Thats all that is being pointed out.


I have Netgear Business Class switches in my setup. I wonder if this is why I have not really had any MRV issues in my hardwired installation.


----------



## ffemtreed

BudShark said:


> Dude.... If you go and buy a Linksys Router or a Netgear Router at Best Buy that you find in 99% of the houses what do you get? A 4 port switch with a Router.
> 
> So its 1 box, commonly referred to as a Router, but for the sake of keeping things on the up and up - we'll use the device name.
> 
> Say you have a Linksys WRT610N. That Linksys has packet processing capabilities built into the Switch firmware. Each packet is analyzed for destination MAC, header, and packet type. If you happen to have turned on other functionality like the WMM (Wireless MultiMedia) or QoS further processing of the packet occurs. All of this is highly dependent on the firmware version of the WRT610N. If you happen to have a D-Link you'll have different results.
> 
> Sorry for the use of the word Router - but last I checked that was the name on the box of the WRT610N.


you are completly missing the point, you still can't misconfigure that "router" in a way that will have any affect on your local network. Such additions such as WMM or QOS ony further enhance the switches performance IF the devices attached to it also support those enhancements.


----------



## ffemtreed

Herdfan said:


> I have Netgear Business Class switches in my setup. I wonder if this is why I have not really had any MRV issues in my hardwired installation.


you havn't had any issues because even the cheapest ethernet switches on the market today provide way more than enough bandwidth and capability to stream some HD content over a local network.


----------



## Movieman

David MacLeod said:


> stay far away from powerline.


I have to disagree. I am using AV 200+ powerline adapters from Belkin and they work perfect for me.



David MacLeod said:


> *powerlines have to be on same circuit, waste of money and time.*
> this is where deca is going to shine, places where people are trying to make (force) powerline and/or wireless to work.


This is not my case and I have it working perfect. Not to say that it wont work better on the same circuit but im getting very good results. Obviously DECA would be a better solution but since its not out yet people have to work with what is available.



Doug Brott said:


> Do not use powerline or wireless for MRV .. You will not be happy with it over the long term.
> 
> If you do use these technologies, they will sort of work, but the experience will be worse than either wired or DECA. Spending money now on additional powerline or wireless equipment will only leave you more frustrated down the road.
> 
> NOW, if you don't intend to use these technologies for MRV, then you should be fine. But if the purpose is MRV .. don't use them.


Although I have always respected your post I think its not a fair statement. Is DECA better, sure cause its will be the long term goal but to say that it will be disappointing to use powerline or other means wouldnt be a fair assessment. I know you personally as well as others have used all the different methods and have found DECA to be a great solution but powerline to me seems to give me the same performance as everyone else is reporting with DECA. I havent had any issues with powerline. DECA would be the better solution but not the only solution.



Doug Brott said:


> It doesn't matter how fast the powerline or wireless is .. for MRV, the experience will be disappointing with these technologies.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Doug Brott

Movieman said:


> Although I have always respected your post I think its not a fair statement. Is DECA better, sure cause its will be the long term goal but to say that it will be disappointing to use powerline or other means wouldnt be a fair assessment. I know you personally as well as others have used all the different methods and have found DECA to be a great solution but powerline to me seems to give me the same performance as everyone else is reporting with DECA. I havent had any issues with powerline. DECA would be the better solution but not the only solution.
> 
> ...
> 
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Two adapters cost over $100 .. Why would anyone choose a solution that is (1) not supported and (2) has at times been very problematic? It's great that it works for you, you won't have to spend any additional money at this point (other than the monthly fee). But I stand by my statement: Do not use powerline or wireless for MRV.


----------



## veryoldschool

Movieman said:


> I have to disagree. I am using AV 200+ powerline adapters from Belkin and they work perfect for me.
> 
> This is not my case and I have it working perfect. Not to say that it wont work better on the same circuit but im getting very good results. Obviously DECA would be a better solution but since its not out yet people have to work with what is available.
> 
> Although I have always respected your post I think its not a fair statement. Is DECA better, sure cause its will be the long term goal but to say that it will be disappointing to use powerline or other means wouldnt be a fair assessment. I know you personally as well as others have used all the different methods and have found DECA to be a great solution but powerline to me seems to give me the same performance as everyone else is reporting with DECA. I havent had any issues with powerline. DECA would be the better solution but not the only solution.
> 
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


I won't question your results at all, "but" yours really seem to be the exception to the rule and not the norm.
[again] as with wireless, powerline depends on the environment they're used in. This is why not everyone has the same results using them.
Hardwired is much more consistent for everyone.


----------



## ffemtreed

Doug Brott said:


> Two adapters cost over $100 .. Why would anyone choose a solution that is (1) not supported and (2) has at times been very problematic? It's great that it works for you, you won't have to spend any additional money at this point (other than the monthly fee). But I stand by my statement: Do not use powerline or wireless for MRV.


I would take that a step further, never use powerline adaptors for anything unless as a last resort!


----------



## Bigg

Cripes people

Routers shouldn't be screwing with packets on the local network, they just have a dumb 4-port switch built in.

The point here is don't spend money on something that's not hardwired Ethernet or DECA. If you already have something else and it's good enough for you, keep it.

Some people may have to get powerline or wireless for other components, and at that point, they may as well just plug the D* receiver in and see if it works. This would be the case for people who live in apartments, or condos. Owner-occupied houses should always be wired with CAT-5e or better.


----------



## ffemtreed

Bigg said:


> Cripes people
> 
> Routers shouldn't be screwing with packets on the local network, they just have a dumb 4-port switch built in.


Thats what I been trying to say all along.


----------



## BudShark

Bigg said:


> Cripes people
> 
> Routers shouldn't be screwing with packets on the local network, they just have a dumb 4-port switch built in.
> 
> The point here is don't spend money on something that's not hardwired Ethernet or DECA. If you already have something else and it's good enough for you, keep it.
> 
> Some people may have to get powerline or wireless for other components, and at that point, they may as well just plug the D* receiver in and see if it works. This would be the case for people who live in apartments, or condos. Owner-occupied houses should always be wired with CAT-5e or better.





ffemtreed said:


> Thats what I been trying to say all along.


They are not dumb. Hubs are dumb. Every switch processes the packets and its performance is a direct result of the quality of the firmware on them. Whether they do layer 2 or layer 3 processing, and whether they have QoS or any other functionality just affects HOW much they process the packet. But every switch processes the packet.

There is a thread for this. The point is this:

1) I can GUARANTEE you what will happen if you install DECA in 10 houses.
2) I can NOT GUARANTEE you what will happen if you install an MRV setup in 10 houses with existing Ethernet networks. And neither can you.

Both of those statements are fact. You'd be lucky if in the 10 houses you used Ethernet if you even found 2 that had the same model Router/Switch and the same firmware. Both of which affect performance.


----------



## Doug Brott

Bigg said:


> Routers shouldn't be screwing with packets on the local network, they just have a dumb 4-port switch built in.





ffemtreed said:


> Thats what I been trying to say all along.


I think the point is what do you call the box you can hold in your hand. The folks that sell these consumer items call them routers.

Yeah, Network Guru knows that in reality there is a functional difference .. Any mention of router is the physical box not the virtual reality that you guys are talking about.


----------



## millervt

thanks for the discussion...My conclusion from this is that I can use some faster-ish powerline (say the 85Mbps) for the ondemand feature (or presumably some N-router, I'll think about which makes the most sense based on cost and ease of installation and such and value in having a new router)......but that for mrv I should either figure out how to run ethernet cables or wait for DECA.

thanks!


----------



## ffemtreed

BudShark said:


> Both of which affect performance.
> 
> I can NOT GUARANTEE you what will happen if you install an MRV setup in 10 houses with existing Ethernet networks. And neither can you.


This supposed performance difference is nothing that will ever affect and results the end user will see. I think you are way over estimating what switches actually do. As long as a switch is Ethernet compliant it will do the job for any home use very well. The little nuances of which firmware or manufacture is irrelevant to a home user.

If I install Ethernet in those 10 houses I CAN guarantee what my end bandwidth is going to be and how it will work.


----------



## BudShark

ffemtreed said:


> This supposed performance difference is nothing that will ever affect and results the end user will see. I think you are way over estimating what switches actually do. As long as a switch is Ethernet compliant it will do the job for any home use very well. The little nuances of which firmware or manufacture is irrelevant to a home user.


There is a long DECA/Ethernet thread that I linked to earlier - feel free to read through that and continue challenging my assumptions. Otherwise, you and I can sit here and thump our chests all day long over who has more experience. I think there is enough evidence in trade rags and various performance testing that would tell us there is a difference in packet processing of switches that can affect performance.

The end result: DECA is a supported model. Ethernet is not. If I'm having problems with my current Ethernet network that affects MRV OR I do not have an Ethernet network available to me - DECA makes much better sense for DirecTV MRV than putting money into either fixing or installing Ethernet.


----------



## ffemtreed

BudShark said:


> I think there is enough evidence in trade rags and various performance testing that would tell us there is a difference in packet processing of switches that can affect performance.


If you read my post right, I did say there is a performance difference on a technical level. Yes some switches do a better job at processing queues and etc and have faster processors in them. What I said in my post is that the differences between the home style switches/routers have such a small difference between them that it doesn't matter to the end user or results.

its like saying a car can go 100.5 MPH instead of 100 MPH. In the end that little difference in results has absolutely no bearing on the functionality of the product.


----------



## BudShark

ffemtreed said:


> If you read my post right, I did say there is a performance difference on a technical level. Yes some switches do a better job at processing queues and etc and have faster processors in them. What I said in my post is that the differences between the home style switches/routers have such a small difference between them that it doesn't matter to the end user or results.
> 
> its like saying a car can go 100.5 MPH instead of 100 MPH. In the end that little difference in results has absolutely no bearing on the functionality of the product.


This is a tired subject - so I apologize in advance.

MRV performance over Ethernet is affected by many things.
-The Switch/Router installed by the consumer. There is plenty of tests AND empirical evidence here during MRV trials to show that certain switches/routers handle heavy data streams better than others. 
-The wiring installed in the home
-Other devices on the network
-The lack of QoS to handle command/control functions like trickplay
*Disclaimer: Is it possible that an Ethernet network would work without a noticeable difference and overcome the obstacles above? YES and if you want to USE IT*

However, MRV performance over DECA is NOT affected by these things. It doesn't have a switch/router component that varies from installation to installation. If the wiring is sufficient for satellite distribution it exceeds DECA needs. It is not as susceptible to other devices on the network. QoS is built in to specifically handle prioritization and bandwidth reservation for smooth video streaming and command overlay.

Its not just the router, its not just the speed, its a combination of things. Can a person go to Best buy, buy a router, use the wiring or install wiring, and get MRV to work? Yes. Will it work 100% of the time? Will it give them the best Trickplay results? Will it work in future versions that have more clients/more data/more control? You can't say yes to those things. Will DECA work in the above scenarios? Yes, and its supported by DirecTV to.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> Someone posting their "opinion" about something they have ZERO experience with, is simply doing a disservice to all those reading their post(s) IMO.


There is a difference between an opinion and understanding and threads like these seem to attract all sorts of opinions. Opinions aren't a bad thing as they may serve as starting points towards a better understanding of the facts.

The only real danger is when opinion is presented as authoritative fact.


----------



## thekochs

OK.....OK......I'm starting to cave.....think I'll pay the $99 to get the DECA just to now be left behind. Ironically, I have (3) HR23-700s all in Home Theater A/V rack that all go thru Crosspoint Matrix switch feeding the PJ in the Home Theater or the bedroom LCD TVs located around the house. So, what is so "ironic" about this.....my "network" for my DVRs is about 2ft long. I have all my HR23s hooked into a GigE switch sitting right behind them in the rack and one link going upstream to my DSL. So, there is no network traffic competing on this link at all. Like most in this thread the playback over Ethernet is great...the trickplay jerky and slow....usable but noticable compared to local trickplay.



JRThiele said:


> 3. When I spoke to DirecTV they implied that I should be able to just keep using my hardwired Ethernet MRV with no charge indefinitely if I want to and *that the biggest limitation is that this will only work between DVR's and won't crossover to basic receivers like DECA will do*.


Question on the quote/comment above....does not matter for me since I have HR23s/DVRs....but DirecTV has said that MRV will not work from Hxx to HRx unless on DECA ?...I must have missed that somewhere.

Also, I'd be *very-very *willing to swallow the $99 and $3/month for the feature and future-proof but is there anyone that can speculate if/when DirecTV has/will plan some better feartures ? Examples, 
1) Remote DVR to DVR scheduling. In other words if you go to schedule recording and you have resource/decoder conflicts it lets you use other DVR from list ?...it just seems this is done for non-DVR to DVR so why penalize the folks that have invested in DVRs. 
2) Unified Playlist "Control".
3) Remote DVR TO-DO or Series Link lists
etc...etc.
Sure, would be nice to know some of DirecTV's feature enhancement plans.


----------



## Movieman

thekochs said:


> OK.....OK......I'm starting to cave.....think I'll pay the $99 to get the DECA just to now be left behind. Ironically, I have (3) HR23-700s all in Home Theater A/V rack that all go thru Crosspoint Matrix switch feeding the PJ in the Home Theater or the bedroom LCD TVs located around the house. So, what is so "ironic" about this.....my "network" for my DVRs is about 2ft long. I have all my HR23s hooked into a GigE switch sitting right behind them in the rack and one link going upstream to my DSL. So, there is no network traffic competing on this link at all. Like most in this thread the playback over Ethernet is great...the trickplay jerky and slow....usable but noticable compared to local trickplay.
> 
> Question on the quote/comment above....does not matter for me since I have HR23s/DVRs....but DirecTV has said that MRV will not work from Hxx to HRx unless on DECA ?...I must have missed that somewhere.
> 
> Also, I'd be *very-very *willing to swallow the $99 and $3/month for the feature and future-proof but is there anyone that can speculate if/when DirecTV has/will plan some better feartures ? Examples,
> *1) Remote DVR to DVR scheduling. In other words if you go to schedule recording and you have resource/decoder conflicts it lets you use other DVR from list ?...it just seems this is done for non-DVR to DVR so why penalize the folks that have invested in DVRs.
> 2) Unified Playlist "Control".
> 3) Remote DVR TO-DO or Series Link lists
> etc...etc.
> Sure, would be nice to know some of DirecTV's feature enhancement plans.*


*
*

This is why I say that if you already have other solution for MRV that is not DECA then going to DECA really wont add anything other than supposed better playback/trickplay improvement. That list is not affected by DECA but more by the equipment Directv is allowing to do this. In this case HR24-H24 or HR2x to H2x. Not saying to stay away from DECA just saying that DECA itself is not going to add anything. Is it will be supported sure thats great but I wouldnt purchase something unless it was offering me more than playback (which im getting now). Hope that makes sense.


----------



## dsw2112

thekochs said:


> So, what is so "ironic" about this.....my "network" for my DVRs is about 2ft long. I have all my HR23s hooked into a GigE switch sitting right behind them in the rack and one link going upstream to my DSL. So, there is no network traffic competing on this link at all. Like most in this thread the playback over Ethernet is great...*the trickplay jerky and slow....usable but noticable compared to local trickplay*.


There's a lot in your post, but I just wanted to single out the above. DECA likely will not help the above issue in your setup.

I would conduct this simple test: patch cable directly from one DVR to another (try one pair of DVR's then the other.) Basically you're eliminating the switch & any other wiring to test MRV. If you notice the same problems with a direct DVR to DVR connection DECA will not help, and you've proved the switch has no latency issues. If it's better the switch has latency issues, or there's a separate network issue.


----------



## thekochs

dsw2112 said:


> I would conduct this simple test: patch cable directly from one DVR to another (try one pair of DVR's then the other.) Basically you're eliminating the switch & any other wiring to test MRV. If you notice the same problems with a direct DVR to DVR connection DECA will not help, and you've proved the switch has no latency issues. If it's better the switch has latency issues, or there's a separate network issue.


What type "patch" cable ? Are you saying regular RJ45 to RJ45 or crossover ? Even if this shows the same "performance" lag on trickplay isn't it something in the RJ45-to-RJ45 connector vs DECA ? I guess since I'm not understanding the connection I don't see how it equates comparing to DECA since that is different port/connection....in other words isn't DECA a split off the RG6 connection except for the uplink adapter ?


----------



## veryoldschool

thekochs said:


> What type "patch" cable ? Are you saying regular RJ45 to RJ45 or crossover ? Even if this shows the same "performance" lag on trickplay isn't it something in the RJ45-to-RJ45 connector vs DECA ? I guess since I'm not understanding the connection I don't see how it equates comparing to DECA since that is different port/connection....in other words isn't DECA a split off the RG6 connection except for the uplink adapter ?


The RJ45 jack will detect a "normal" cable being used for a crossover.
My "trickplay" is great, but not sure if this is because of DECA or running a newer version of software.
If DirecTV "said" MRV wouldn't work from a H21/23 to HR2x without DECA, they were wrong.
DECA adapter using the RG6 for the cable, but feeds the RJ45 jack of the receivers.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> There is a difference between an opinion and understanding and threads like these seem to attract all sorts of opinions. Opinions aren't a bad thing as they may serve as starting points towards a better understanding of the facts.
> 
> The only real danger is when opinion is presented as authoritative fact.


An uninformed, or from zero experience, opinion becomes basically a useless opinion since it isn't based on any real data points.


----------



## dsw2112

thekochs said:


> What type "patch" cable ? Are you saying regular RJ45 to RJ45 or crossover ? ?


A crossover cable is not necessary as the ports will autosense and crossover internally. Any regular patch cable will do for the test.



thekochs said:


> Even if this shows the same "performance" lag on trickplay isn't it something in the RJ45-to-RJ45 connector vs DECA ? I guess since I'm not understanding the connection I don't see how it equates comparing to DECA since that is different port/connection....in other words isn't DECA a split off the RG6 connection except for the uplink adapter ?


Think of a DECA dongle as a diplexor. The DECA dongle has an ethernet connection that plugs into the NIC (RJ45 connector) on your box. It takes the data from the NIC and simply "injects" it into the coax.

My test was simply to rule out your switch and networking gear on the uplink side. If your boxes don't work any better with a 3 foot patch cable connecting them you won't see an improvement with DECA.


----------



## Doug Brott

dsw2112 said:


> A crossover cable is not necessary as the ports will autosense and crossover internally. Any regular patch cable will do for the test.


Correct, the Ethernet ports auto sense, so there is no need for a special patch cable. You might consider restarting each of the two receivers for this test, but it may not be necessary.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> An uninformed, or from zero experience, opinion becomes basically a useless opinion since it isn't based on any real data points.


It isn't useless as long as it forms a basis for scholarly discussion.

The less useful part is when the findings are "handed down" without supporting data points or test parameters.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> It isn't useless as long as it forms a basis for scholarly discussion.
> 
> The less useful part is when the findings are "handed down" without supporting data points or test parameters.


You can try to spin it as much as you want, but more often than not, you just derail a thread with meaningless babble.


----------



## thekochs

veryoldschool said:


> My "trickplay" is great, but not sure if this is because of DECA or running a newer version of software.


OK....so *now* you've peeked my interest. I'm sure you are talking about CE but wanted to explain my motive. I really could care less about spending the $99 for the DECA....it's the PITA factor of just changing from what I have. Since my A/V rack has the three HR23s all there to a brand new GigE switch with absolutely nothing else on that link/leg I just can't see that trickplay would have an issue. So, while I would not mind doing the test as outlined....simple...my guess is that while DECA may be better for trickplay the gap I have between trickplay on LOCAL vesus MRV is fairly substantial....still usable...and much better than previous software....but I'm guessing perhaps not as good as new software. Of course I have nothing to base that on. So,.......with that said can you ID the CE software you are running ?



veryoldschool said:


> If DirecTV "said" MRV wouldn't work from a H21/23 to HR2x without DECA, they were wrong.


Good to hear....not that it really matters to me...but thought I had missed something....which happens often.


----------



## veryoldschool

thekochs said:


> OK....so *now* you've peeked my interest. I'm sure you are talking about CE but wanted to explain my motive. I really could care less about spending the $99 for the DECA....it's the PITA factor of just changing from what I have. Since my A/V rack has the three HR23s all there to a brand new GigE switch with absolutely nothing else on that link/leg I just can't see that trickplay would have an issue. So, while I would not mind doing the test as outlined....simple...my guess is that while DECA may be better for trickplay the gap I have between trickplay on LOCAL vesus MRV is fairly substantial....still usable...and much better than previous software....but I'm guessing perhaps not as good as new software. Of course I have nothing to base that on. So,.......with that said can you ID the CE software you are running ?
> 
> Good to hear....not that it really matters to me...but thought I had missed something....which happens often.


First "ID" myself? :nono: :lol:
If you're running a switch behind your 3 HR23s, I'd guess your network isn't the issue.
The server "power" more than likely is your issue.
My HR24 works the best.
My HR20 lags behind.
Now that I have a 24, my HR21 got too slow and has been retired, and my HR20 "feels like" my HR21 used to [before I got the 24].
I never played with a 23, but the 21/22/23 were slower than the 20s.


----------



## spartanstew

veryoldschool said:


> [fanboy hat on]
> I've been using DECA for maybe six months and simply wouldn't go back to my ethernet setup for MRV.
> During this time, I've had to reboot one receiver because the DECA didn't config after a download. ONCE.
> I've had to reboot my router many more times than this before moving to DECA.
> Once MRV starts up [yes there still is a lag starting] I can't tell whether I'm watching the recording locally or remotely.


I'm hardwired all the way on my two main receivers and I can't tell whether I'm watching a recording locally or remotely either. I have no delay with trickplay at all. And I've never had to reboot my router or receivers.


----------



## spartanstew

Doug Brott said:


> Do not use powerline or wireless for MRV .. You will not be happy with it over the long term.
> 
> If you do use these technologies, they will sort of work, but the experience will be worse than either wired or DECA. Spending money now on additional powerline or wireless equipment will only leave you more frustrated down the road.
> 
> NOW, if you don't intend to use these technologies for MRV, then you should be fine. But if the purpose is MRV .. don't use them.


I still have one receiver on a wireless adapter and so far (9 months?), it's been fine. There's a very slight delay on trickplay, but it's not very noticeable.


----------



## thekochs

spartanstew said:


> I'm hardwired all the way on my two main receivers and I can't tell whether I'm watching a recording locally or remotely either. I have no delay with trickplay at all. And I've never had to reboot my router or receivers.


What STBs do you have ?


----------



## thekochs

veryoldschool said:


> First "ID" myself? :nono: :lol:
> If you're running a switch behind your 3 HR23s, I'd guess your network isn't the issue.
> The server "power" more than likely is your issue.
> My HR24 works the best.
> My HR20 lags behind.
> Now that I have a 24, my HR21 got too slow and has been retired, and my HR20 "feels like" my HR21 used to [before I got the 24].
> I never played with a 23, but the 21/22/23 were slower than the 20s.


That's my guess too......the HR23-700 are brand new....wish I'd waited for HR24. I'm running latest National Release. Was there MRV trickplay performace improvement from the National Release to the one you are running for the Hr20 or HR21 ?...or even HR24.


----------



## spartanstew

thekochs said:


> What STBs do you have ?


My hardwired units are HR20-700 & HR21-700.

HR21-100 has a wireless adapter.


----------



## veryoldschool

thekochs said:


> Was there MRV trickplay performace improvement from the National Release to the one you are running for the Hr20 or HR21 ?...or even HR24.


The national isn't that old and I don't remember any major changes since.


----------



## thekochs

spartanstew said:


> My hardwired units are HR20-700 & HR21-700.


So you have these "hardwired" thru a switch ?

Also, if you serve a show "from" the HR21-700(specifically) to the others the trickplay (eg.30 second slip) is as fast as local ? For me if local slip speed is a 10 on a scale of 1-10, the remote slip is about a 5.....was about a 2 prior to last national release. Mine is any HR23-700 to another HR23-700.


----------



## spartanstew

thekochs said:


> So you have these "hardwired" thru a switch ?
> 
> Also, if you serve a show "from" the HR21-700(specifically) to the others the trickplay (eg.30 second slip) is as fast as local ? For me if local slip speed is a 10 on a scale of 1-10, the remote slip is about a 5.....was about a 2 prior to last national release. Mine is any HR23-700 to another HR23-700.


They're wired directly to the router.

I don't watch shows "from" the HR21-700. All my viewing is in the living room where the HR21-700 resides. I watch "from" the HR20-700 (to the HR21-700), which is in another room. And yes, it's just as fast as local (HR21-700)


----------



## Thaedron

millervt said:


> thanks for the discussion...My conclusion from this is that I can use some faster-ish powerline (say the 85Mbps) for the ondemand feature (or presumably some N-router, I'll think about which makes the most sense based on cost and ease of installation and such and value in having a new router)......but that for mrv I should either figure out how to run ethernet cables or wait for DECA.


An excellent conclusion!


----------



## thekochs

spartanstew said:


> I don't watch shows "from" the HR21-700.


To test VOS's theory on server/STB speed (HR20 vs. HR21/22/23 vs. HR24) would you mind recording a show on the HR21 and watch from the HR20 and test trickplay and see if there is difference in speed ?


----------



## Bigg

BudShark said:


> This is a tired subject - so I apologize in advance.
> 
> MRV performance over Ethernet is affected by many things.
> -The Switch/Router installed by the consumer. There is plenty of tests AND empirical evidence here during MRV trials to show that certain switches/routers handle heavy data streams better than others.
> -The wiring installed in the home
> -Other devices on the network
> -The lack of QoS to handle command/control functions like trickplay
> *Disclaimer: Is it possible that an Ethernet network would work without a noticeable difference and overcome the obstacles above? YES and if you want to USE IT*
> 
> However, MRV performance over DECA is NOT affected by these things. It doesn't have a switch/router component that varies from installation to installation. If the wiring is sufficient for satellite distribution it exceeds DECA needs. It is not as susceptible to other devices on the network. QoS is built in to specifically handle prioritization and bandwidth reservation for smooth video streaming and command overlay.
> 
> Its not just the router, its not just the speed, its a combination of things. Can a person go to Best buy, buy a router, use the wiring or install wiring, and get MRV to work? Yes. Will it work 100% of the time? Will it give them the best Trickplay results? Will it work in future versions that have more clients/more data/more control? You can't say yes to those things. Will DECA work in the above scenarios? Yes, and its supported by DirecTV to.


Switches are switches, unless they are managed. Let's assume they are all unmanaged. They simply forward data packets on. Unless the DVRs are on different switches, where there could be bottlenecked links, you are not going to have any issues. It's virtually impossible to have more than 1ms of latency on a local LAN. If you can't avoid putting the DVRs on different switches, gigabit pretty much eliminates bottlenecks, as nothing on the network could saturate a gigabit link.

The notion that different switches handle heavy data streams different is ridiculous. They all run at the same speed, it's the computers and their software on the two ends that makes the different. Plus, the concept that D* DVRs are using a heavy data stream is silly. How big are these streams? Figure worst case scenario, you've recorded a local through an AM-21 that has no subchannels. That's 19mbps. Realistically, figure 12mbps for ATSC locals, less for nationals that are MPEG-4 AVC. Large file transfers over an ethernet LAN regularly run around 90-95mbps, sometimes peaking at 99mbps for single large files, and with today's computers that can move hundreds of gigs, can go on for a while.


----------



## BudShark

Bigg said:


> Switches are switches, unless they are managed. Let's assume they are all unmanaged. They simply forward data packets on. Unless the DVRs are on different switches, where there could be bottlenecked links, you are not going to have any issues. It's virtually impossible to have more than 1ms of latency on a local LAN. If you can't avoid putting the DVRs on different switches, gigabit pretty much eliminates bottlenecks, as nothing on the network could saturate a gigabit link.
> 
> The notion that different switches handle heavy data streams different is ridiculous. They all run at the same speed, it's the computers and their software on the two ends that makes the different. Plus, the concept that D* DVRs are using a heavy data stream is silly. How big are these streams? Figure worst case scenario, you've recorded a local through an AM-21 that has no subchannels. That's 19mbps. Realistically, figure 12mbps for ATSC locals, less for nationals that are MPEG-4 AVC. Large file transfers over an ethernet LAN regularly run around 90-95mbps, sometimes peaking at 99mbps for single large files, and with today's computers that can move hundreds of gigs, can go on for a while.


I'd suggest reading this: and focus on the switch technologies.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk689/technologies_tech_note09186a00800a7af3.shtml

All switches, by their fundamental nature, have a processor, operating system, and unique code/algorithms for handling data. All switches read every packet they see and their efficiency at doing so is unique. To us, does it all seem to fast to see a difference? Yes. Believe it or not... in certain situations a hub will provide better performance than a switch because it lacks the overhead of the switch.

We've drifted back to the DECA vs. Ethernet argument of the older thread. The fact is, Ethernet results are variable for many reasons. Can it work - yes. DECA results are not variable and supported by DirecTV. Will it work - guaranteed.

However, to say all switches perform the same and have no processing overhead is patently false.


----------



## harsh

BudShark said:


> All switches, by their fundamental nature, have a processor, operating system, and unique code/algorithms for handling data.


You give too much credit to switches. What you're talking about can be attributed to routers (that are separately contemplated in the linked document). Switches are a lot less complicated. The typical residential switch is a relatively simple store and forward (relay) scenario. There are no fancy algorithms for choosing paths. If a path is in use, the packet is queued. The switch has but to recognize whether the address is one of its own and if it is, it relays the packet to the appropriate pipe.

The key element of MRV that tosses your arguments out the window is that it exists between exactly two devices. The connection between these two devices can effectively be thought of as two separate (and largely dedicated) directional pipes; one from the server to the client and one from the client to the server. Traffic from devices not involved in the MRV shouldn't enter into the picture in a significant way.

The two flys in the ointment are other receivers trying to engage receivers that are already conversing (presumably not a common occurrence) and multicast packets. Multicast packets may impact the viewing receivers as these packets must be queued in with the incoming MRV stream, but they tend to be small and infrequent.

In contrast, the DECA Network Coordinator (NC) is charged with directing all cloud traffic in such a way that only one conversation can be going on at any one time (including multicast packets). IIRC, the requests come by way of something similar to token passing.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> You give too much credit to switches. What you're talking about can be attributed to routers (that are separately contemplated in the linked document). Switches are a lot less complicated. The typical residential switch is a relatively simple store and forward (relay) scenario. There are no fancy algorithms for choosing paths. If a path is in use, the packet is queued. The switch has but to recognize whether the address is one of its own and if it is, it relays the packet to the appropriate pipe.
> 
> The key element of MRV that tosses your arguments out the window is that it exists between exactly two devices. The connection between these two devices can effectively be thought of as two separate (and largely dedicated) directional pipes; one from the server to the client and one from the client to the server. Traffic from devices not involved in the MRV shouldn't enter into the picture in a significant way.
> 
> The two flys in the ointment are other receivers trying to engage receivers that are already conversing (presumably not a common occurrence) and multicast packets. Multicast packets may impact the viewing receivers as these packets must be queued in with the incoming MRV stream, but they tend to be small and infrequent.
> 
> In contrast, the DECA Network Coordinator (NC) is charged with directing all cloud traffic in such a way that only one conversation can be going on at any one time (including multicast packets). IIRC, the requests come by way of something similar to token passing.


First off, you know nothing of DirecTV MRV as you have never used it, tested it, or even have DirecTV.

Second off.. let me take this quote: 


> Switches are a lot less complicated. The typical residential switch is a relatively simple store and forward (relay) scenario. There are no fancy algorithms for choosing paths. If a path is in use, the packet is queued. The switch has but to recognize whether the address is one of its own and if it is, it relays the packet to the appropriate pipe.


Oh, Ok. Gotcha. An underpowered, cheapest component available, home swtich/router that you buy at Best Buy looks at every packet, determines the destination, if its to a local MAC address, it checks that port and sees whether or not that port is available. If it is, then it sends the packet and withholds any other packets until that one is sent. If it is currently sending a packet it queues it until the port is available. At the same time its also processing these packets against its ARP table to determine the port the destination device sits on.

Oh yeah, its also the home Internet router. Since its a cheap off the shelf product, its sharing this processor and code with the routing, Network Address Translation, and other functions of the router. And lets really hope its not a 2-Wire or one of the other DSL/Cable modem multifunction devices because then the processor/code is managing the Internet connection, Routing/Address Translation Functions, and the Switch function.

Yep... I probably give them too much credit. Luckily I slept at a Holiday Inn last night and I'll be amazed if they didn't have practical [REAL] hands on experience with Ethernet, DECA, and 15+ years of experience in corporate networks and Real Time traffic flow in manufacturing. It just absorbed into my head as I slept.

Don't you have a 922 or Dish Network thread to go spend some time in? Or is it harder there because they have the same equipment and recognize when someone is talking about which they do not know???? :grin:


----------



## harsh

BudShark said:


> First off, you know nothing of DirecTV MRV as you have never used it, tested it, or even have DirecTV.


Rather than attacking me personally, all would certainly be better served if you stuck to correcting or refining what I've offered. By and large, I wasn't speaking to DECA anyway. If what I said about DECA isn't true, you should carefully show where I went wrong.

Subscribing to DIRECTV does not endow one with a unique or exclusive ability to understand MoCA, DECA, Ethernet, electronics, encryption, RF theory, orbital mechanics, physics or mathematics.


> An underpowered, cheapest component available, home swtich/router that you buy at Best Buy looks at every packet, determines the destination, if its to a local MAC address, it checks that port and sees whether or not that port is available.


Again, you're couching the discussion in an environment that doesn't exist. The switch doesn't agonize over what it should do -- it reacts in one of two ways. If an address is in its table, it routes it. If it isn't, it sends it to the router.


> If it is, then it sends the packet and withholds any other packets until that one is sent.


Witholding is something that your employer does to your wages. Buffering isn't nearly that sinister nor all-consuming of resources. In this illustration, the individual packet gets queued and the switch moves on to the next packet.


----------



## Doug Brott

So I'll pass this on again ..

If you have a home network already set up and you are happy with MRV performance over this home network .. Then use what you have. If down the road, you find that there are problems, then move towards DECA.

DECA is going to provide you with the following "features" regardless of anything else:

MRV as good as or better than Ethernet Home Networking
Full support from DIRECTV
Potentially cheaper installation than other home networking methods

The situation will vary by individual, but most people will benefit from DECA. Few will find it a problem and in those cases, it will almost certainly be the cost that is the problem.


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> [...]
> 
> If you have a home network already set up and you are happy with MRV performance over this home network .. Then use what you have. If down the road, you find that there are problems, then move towards DECA.
> 
> DECA is going to provide you with the following "features" regardless of anything else:
> 
> MRV as good as or better than Ethernet Home Networking
> Full support from DIRECTV
> Potentially cheaper installation than other home networking methods
> 
> The situation will vary by individual, but most people will benefit from DECA. Few will find it a problem and in those cases, it will almost certainly be the cost that is the problem.


This post should be made a "sticky", IMHO. I think it sums up the DECA vs. Cat5/6 pros and cons in a nutshell.


----------



## Bigg

harsh said:


> Rather than attacking me personally, all would certainly be better served if you stuck to correcting or refining what I've offered. By and large, I wasn't speaking to DECA anyway. If what I said about DECA isn't true, you should carefully show where I went wrong.
> 
> Subscribing to DIRECTV does not endow one with a unique or exclusive ability to understand MoCA, DECA, Ethernet, electronics, encryption, RF theory, orbital mechanics, physics or mathematics.Again, you're couching the discussion in an environment that doesn't exist. The switch doesn't agonize over what it should do -- it reacts in one of two ways. If an address is in its table, it routes it. If it isn't, it sends it to the router.Witholding is something that your employer does to your wages. Buffering isn't nearly that sinister nor all-consuming of resources. In this illustration, the individual packet gets queued and the switch moves on to the next packet.


Yup pretty much. Consumer Ethernet switches are not web managed much less Level 3, so as long as they are non-blocking, they just pass on what is given to them. This is why you can set up a bunch of them and end up with a unified IP network.

While DECA has been designed for DirecTV, it's not any more efficient than an Ethernet switch. That's not say say that it's not impressive technology, it is.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> This post should be made a "sticky", IMHO. I think it sums up the DECA vs. Cat5/6 pros and cons in a nutshell.


Agree with you on that Steve.


----------



## Phil17108

Hi All
I joined dbstake just to let my experience with the MRV known. I like it and think the $3 to $5 bucks is worth it.
I have 3 dvr's on one network using cat-5e, a 5 port switch bridged to a router of the same make with a 6 inch cat-6. the router has 4 LAN's and one WAN. WAN to the a DSL modem with cat-6, the other 3 LAN's are for computers. The MVR works so good that I can't tell the difference between the 3 dvr's. that being said the hr-20 was getting slower and slower doing anything. I checked the tempter in it and it was up around 130, pulled the plug and let it set overnight. This A.M. plugged it back in and works as fast as it ever did. So I have to think that some of the problem with slow MRV can be something other then the network. What I have found to be slow is VOD. To check it out long before the MVR beta I pulled some more cat-5e from the hr-20 to an hr-21 using the pass through switch on it to get to the router. VOD was so slow that I just forgot about it. when the MRV beta started I found it worked OK but had to restart the dvr's a few times to get them taking to each other. it also seamed a little slow. thats when I add the 5 port switch to the system and just maybe direct added a few bits to MVR beta, as of now it works great. I well not be paying for deca. If direct does it for free with the new hr-24's I'll spent the time waiting around for the installer.
As far as VOD, the verizon DSL line here is just about useless, so slow it takes a day and a half to down load a movie, forget that. I have an HR-20, HR- 21 and HR- 22 in use and pleased with what they do. One more thing, what is trickplay or what is your defintion of trickplay? Thanks


----------



## Bigg

Phil17108 said:


> Hi All
> I joined dbstake just to let my experience with the MRV known. I like it and think the $3 to $5 bucks is worth it.
> I have 3 dvr's on one network using cat-5e, a 5 port switch bridged to a router of the same make with a 6 inch cat-6. the router has 4 LAN's and one WAN. WAN to the a DSL modem with cat-6, the other 3 LAN's are for computers. The MVR works so good that I can't tell the difference between the 3 dvr's. that being said the hr-20 was getting slower and slower doing anything. I checked the tempter in it and it was up around 130, pulled the plug and let it set overnight. This A.M. plugged it back in and works as fast as it ever did. So I have to think that some of the problem with slow MRV can be something other then the network. What I have found to be slow is VOD. To check it out long before the MVR beta I pulled some more cat-5e from the hr-20 to an hr-21 using the pass through switch on it to get to the router. VOD was so slow that I just forgot about it. when the MRV beta started I found it worked OK but had to restart the dvr's a few times to get them taking to each other. it also seamed a little slow. thats when I add the 5 port switch to the system and just maybe direct added a few bits to MVR beta, as of now it works great. I well not be paying for deca. If direct does it for free with the new hr-24's I'll spent the time waiting around for the installer.
> As far as VOD, the verizon DSL line here is just about useless, so slow it takes a day and a half to down load a movie, forget that. I have an HR-20, HR- 21 and HR- 22 in use and pleased with what they do. One more thing, what is trickplay or what is your defintion of trickplay? Thanks


Trickplay is FFing/ RWing other than just skipping ads (or sometimes including that). A lot of shows you might just watch through, but say the Olympics, you skip all over the recording to blast through 5 hours of coverage a day in an hour, watch some in FF and then go back to normal for the end of the race (say short track if you like that), find certain ski jumpers, etc. Also, if people get "TiVo ear" and don't pay good attention any more because they know they can go back a little bit, that's trick-playing too. Trick-playing remotely can be demanding on a network, as it requires low latency and no bottlenecks.


----------



## MyDogHasFleas

If this question was already answered. my apologies in advance.

Can I have a mixed DECA and Ethernet setup? Or does it have to be all one or the other? 

In other words, can I connect some of my boxes via Ethernet and some via coax/DECA, and still have MRV among them?


----------



## Bigg

MyDogHasFleas said:


> If this question was already answered. my apologies in advance.
> 
> Can I have a mixed DECA and Ethernet setup? Or does it have to be all one or the other?
> 
> In other words, can I connect some of my boxes via Ethernet and some via coax/DECA, and still have MRV among them?


I would imagine, but I don't know. That would be a similar case as how to install a SWM-16, as SWM-16 is basically two SWM-8's in parallel, which would have to have two separate DECA adapters both connected to the same switch/router.


----------



## Steve

MyDogHasFleas said:


> If this question was already answered. my apologies in advance.
> 
> Can I have a mixed DECA and Ethernet setup? Or does it have to be all one or the other?
> 
> In other words, can I connect some of my boxes via Ethernet and some via coax/DECA, and still have MRV among them?


As long as your DECA-connected boxes are on the same subnet as your Ethernet boxes, they should be able to communicate with each other for MRV purposes.


----------



## bobcamp1

Bigg said:


> Yup pretty much. Consumer Ethernet switches are not web managed much less Level 3, so as long as they are non-blocking, they just pass on what is given to them. This is why you can set up a bunch of them and end up with a unified IP network.
> 
> While DECA has been designed for DirecTV, it's not any more efficient than an Ethernet switch. That's not say say that it's not impressive technology, it is.


I agree with this. I have seen some cheap consumer routers (BEFW11S4 v4, given to me for free and was worth every penny I paid for it) lock up when traffic gets heavy. The solution isn't to pay through the nose to get DECA and a two-year commitment. Just buy a better router. Good routers can route MRV traffic with no problems.

Likewise, for MRV, Tivo uses a Wireless-N bridge just fine. Trickplay sometimes has a tiny delay, but it works very well. Actually, Wireless-G is acceptable with the trick play delay being there most of the time but only a second longer than normal.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with D*. There's sometimes a five second delay in trick play when NOT using MRV. If the D* boxes had good Ethernet ICs, drivers, and lots of spare computing power, they shouldn't have any problems using a regular Ethernet network. But D* boxes aren't that good to begin with, and this is retrofitting a feature into older designed (and already troublesome) hardware and software.

The D* boxes need all the help they can get. Dedicating a network just for them and having an external adapter (or separate IC) deal with QoS issues helps them out quite a bit.


----------



## veryoldschool

Bigg said:


> I would imagine, but I don't know. That would be a similar case as how to install a SWM-16, as SWM-16 is basically two SWM-8's in parallel, which would have to have two separate DECA adapters both connected to the same switch/router.


While the SWiM16 is "basically" two SWM8s, it does have a DECA crossover between them internally, which means both are on the same DECA cloud and would need only one bridge to the home network.


----------



## veryoldschool

bobcamp1 said:


> The solution isn't to pay through the nose to get DECA and a two-year commitment.


The DECA upgrade doesn't have ANY commitment with it.
When receivers are swapped/changed/added, these are what triggers a commitment.


----------



## Dusty

veryoldschool said:


> The DECA upgrade doesn't have ANY commitment with it.
> When receivers are swapped/changed/added, these are what triggers a commitment.


I am not sure that is true. I was specifically told by the CSR that I have a new 2-year commitment. I didn't get new receivers.


----------



## veryoldschool

Dusty said:


> I am not sure that is true. I was specifically told by the CSR that I have a new 2-year commitment. I didn't get new receivers.


The CSR was mistaken, as "I know" from DirecTV that the receivers are what would cause a commitment.


----------



## Doug Brott

bobcamp1 said:


> The solution isn't to pay through the nose to get DECA ...


Paying for Ethernet could easily be more than paying for DECA. Many people don't have existing infrastructure to support home networking to the set top box.


----------



## Rabushka

If I am not mistaken, DECA requires SWM. My guess is that there are at least a few million or more customers without SWM. I am one of them with 4 DVRs wired via multiswitch. Does anyone think D* will convert me to SWM so I can use DECA? If not, then DECA is meaningless to me unless I want to pay for an SWM installation.


----------



## veryoldschool

Rabushka said:


> If I am not mistaken, DECA requires SWM. My guess is that there are at least a few million or more customers without SWM. I am one of them with 4 DVRs wired via multiswitch. Does anyone think D* will convert me to SWM so I can use DECA? If not, then DECA is meaningless to me unless I want to pay for an SWM installation.


The DECA upgrade comes with a SWM conversion [if needed] for all one price.


----------



## Dusty

Rabushka said:


> If I am not mistaken, DECA requires SWM. My guess is that there are at least a few million or more customers without SWM. I am one of them with 4 DVRs wired via multiswitch. Does anyone think D* will convert me to SWM so I can use DECA? If not, then DECA is meaningless to me unless I want to pay for an SWM installation.


They did for me. In my case, they replaced the dish with a built-in SWiM. The cost was included in the DECA upgraded.

Speaking of that, the old dish is sitting on my lawn right now. I need to make it disappear before it ticks off my wife.


----------



## Dusty

veryoldschool said:


> The CSR was mistaken, as "I know" from DirecTV that the receivers are what would cause a commitment.


What about the dish? Will a new dish triggers a new commitment?


----------



## veryoldschool

Dusty said:


> What about the dish? Will a new dish triggers a new commitment?


No, it's the receivers that do it.
Sounds like you had an older AT-9 that can't have a SWMLNB mounted.


----------



## Dusty

veryoldschool said:


> No, it's the receivers that do it.
> Sounds like you had an older AT-9 that can't have a SWMLNB mounted.


Really? That is encouraging. I'll call and check on it and argue if necessary.

Yes, I think my old dish is an AT-9.


----------



## jaguar325

With the help of some network savvy folks on this forum, I embarked on a Cat6 wiring project this past winter. All DVRs are on dedicated runs to a Gigabit switch (more than the DVR nics can handle right now - but useful for other devices). Since things surrounding the install "settled down", no reboots of the DVRs, switch or router (about 3 months of stability). Honestly, we don't see any difference in performance when running a DVR remotely through MRV. The only lag seems to be, as another poster said, when the program is first accessed and started. The only remote control speed issue I had turned out to an iPod Shuffle that was recharging in the DVR's USB port and it was partially blocking the IR. My plan is to run MRV with hard-wired ethernet unless some reason comes along that forces me off of it. I don't have SWM and am not compelled to make that change either since there are 2 RG6 jacks for every DVR. As everyone I think seems to be saying, it's all a matter of what you have already that drives what you need.

For people trying to make hard-wired work and having speed problems, I would test direct connecting the DVRs to each other or using through a switch to see if it improves performance - in other words, bypassing your router to do the switching between devices in your home that only need occasional access to the internet. This helped me a lot. 

Good luck!


----------



## harsh

bobcamp1 said:


> I agree with this. I have seen some cheap consumer routers (BEFW11S4 v4, given to me for free and was worth every penny I paid for it) lock up when traffic gets heavy. The solution isn't to pay through the nose to get DECA and a two-year commitment. Just buy a better router. Good routers can route MRV traffic with no problems.


As has been pointed out, MRV has absolutely nothing to do with routers. Routers come into play only for Internet (or WAN) traffic. MRV should never leave your LAN. That most consumer routers include a small switch should not be cause to confuse the two functions as one-in-the-same.

It isn't entirely reasonable to form an opinion of how things are today based on experiences with an 802.11b router that debuted in early 2003.


----------



## dminches

jaguar325 said:


> I don't have SWM and am not compelled to make that change either since there are 2 RG6 jacks for every DVR. As everyone I think seems to be saying, it's all a matter of what you have already that drives what you need.


Do you mean you already have 2 RG6 jacks or you need 2 RG6 jacks? I thought with SWM there is one coaxial run per DVR.



jaguar325 said:


> For people trying to make hard-wired work and having speed problems, I would test direct connecting the DVRs to each other or using through a switch to see if it improves performance - in other words, bypassing your router to do the switching between devices in your home that only need occasional access to the internet. This helped me a lot.
> 
> Good luck!


That's how my entire home network is set up. I have all my devices (DVRs, computers and NASes) connected with a 24 port Netgear switch and the switch connected to my gigabit router.


----------



## MyDogHasFleas

Steve said:


> As long as your DECA-connected boxes are on the same subnet as your Ethernet boxes, they should be able to communicate with each other for MRV purposes.


OK so how does the DECA network get bridged onto my home Ethernet network? and how do I assign network addresses to DECA connected boxes so that I can be sure they are on the same subnet?

Sorry for asking such basic questions but I don't see a "DECA architecture overview" anywhere here.


----------



## webcrawlr

There's a module that connects the two networks, similar to what homeplug or a wireless bridge would do.


----------



## Doug Brott

DIRECTV is manufacturing a Broadband DECA device that looks similar to a home router. It will have a power connector, an Ethernet port and a coax connection. The Ethernet will connect to your home network, and the coax will connect to your SWiM/DECA network.

Also, a standard DECA module can be used as the broadband DECA. For this, the tail on the DECA that would normally plug into your HR20/21/23 is instead plugged into a power adapter (with a coax connect). Then the Ethernet port is connected to your home network and the remaining coax input is connected to your SWiM/DECA network.

In both cases, your DHCP server (router or other) can then communicate an IP address to your set top boxes on the DECA cloud. Additionally, you can manually set the IP address on the set top boxes just as before.


----------



## veryoldschool

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV is manufacturing a Broadband DECA device that looks similar to a home router. It will have a power connector, an Ethernet port and a coax connection. The Ethernet will connect to your home network, and the coax will connect to your SWiM/DECA network.
> 
> Also, a standard DECA module can be used as the broadband DECA. For this, the tail on the DECA that would normally plug into your HR20/21/23 is instead plugged into a power adapter (with a coax connect). Then the Ethernet port is connected to your home network and the remaining coax input is connected to your SWiM/DECA network.
> 
> In both cases, your DHCP server (router or other) can then communicate an IP address to your set top boxes on the DECA cloud. Additionally, you can manually set the IP address on the set top boxes just as before.


----------



## ffemtreed

MyDogHasFleas said:


> OK so how does the DECA network get bridged onto my home Ethernet network? and how do I assign network addresses to DECA connected boxes so that I can be sure they are on the same subnet?
> 
> Sorry for asking such basic questions but I don't see a "DECA architecture overview" anywhere here.


Your DECA cloud/devices don't use IP addresses or subnets, it uses its own proprietarty protocols to transfer data between devices. In other words there is nothing you need to assign.The DECA adaptor that bridges the two networks together is the only thing that MIGHT need an IP address and subnet mask (which has to be on your local network).


----------



## DogLover

ffemtreed said:


> Your DECA cloud/devices don't use IP addresses or subnets, it uses its own proprietarty protocols to transfer data between devices. In other words there is nothing you need to assign.The DECA adaptor that bridges the two networks together is the only thing that MIGHT need an IP address and subnet mask (which has to be on your local network).


While that may be true for MRV, the DECA receivers/DVRs will need IP addresses if there are any non-DECA receivers/DVRs as well as for DOD and PPV.

As has been said, they set up just like the non-DECA boxes. They can be set up to receive their IP address through DHCP, or can be manually set to a static IP address using advanced network setup.


----------



## ffemtreed

DogLover said:


> While that may be true for MRV, the DECA receivers/DVRs will need IP addresses if there are any non-DECA receivers/DVRs as well as for DOD and PPV.
> 
> As has been said, they set up just like the non-DECA boxes. They can be set up to receive their IP address through DHCP, or can be manually set to a static IP address using advanced network setup.


I don't have DECA so I can't test anything, but from a technical theory standpoint I would guess you are wrong. All the PPV,DOD and etc data will get flooded onto the DECA network by the DECA gateway that hooks to your local network. The only application I can see having issues would be directv2pc. I think DTV is trying to get away from any customer configs and wants a plug and play system.

Then again, I might be wrong and you might still need to assign IP's to each box, but that would seem to defeat the DECA purposes of ease of installation.


----------



## DogLover

ffemtreed said:


> I don't have DECA so I can't test anything, but from a technical theory standpoint I would guess you are wrong. All the PPV,DOD and etc data will get flooded onto the DECA network by the DECA gateway that hooks to your local network. The only application I can see having issues would be directv2pc. I think DTV is trying to get away from any customer configs and wants a plug and play system.
> 
> Then again, I might be wrong and you might still need to assign IP's to each box, but that would seem to defeat the DECA purposes of ease of installation.


I do not have the DECA gateway that is being developed, so that may work differently. However, I do have a mixed DECA and non-DECA network.

The HR24 and H24 are set up with a default to use DHCP. If they are connected with a DECA adapter to the ethernet network, they will try DHCP and get an IP address. If they are not connected to your home ethernet network, I believe they will resolve IP addresses between themselves and (169.* addresses as I recall). There is really no way to keep them from getting an IP address as they do this automatically. (Since they do this automatically, it does not complicate the ease of installation.)

I'm trying to determine how to test this out to get a definitive answer. If you have an idea of how to test, I'll give it a try.


----------



## bobnielsen

The DECA devices themselves do not get IP addresses assigned, but act as bridges. The receivers will obtain an IP address just as with ethernet connections. When a DVR and a receiver are connected together via DECA with no connection to your network, they will self-assign 169.x.x.x addresses so that they can communicate with each other. I tested this and it works as anticipated.


----------



## veryoldschool

ffemtreed said:


> I don't have DECA so I can't test anything, but from a technical theory standpoint I would guess you are wrong. All the PPV,DOD and etc data will get flooded onto the DECA network by the DECA gateway that hooks to your local network. The only application I can see having issues would be directv2pc. I think DTV is trying to get away from any customer configs and wants a plug and play system.
> 
> Then again, I might be wrong and you might still need to assign IP's to each box, but that would seem to defeat the DECA purposes of ease of installation.


When I changed over from wired to DECA, I did NOTHING to my network config. The Router had IPs reserved by MAC addresses, just a leftover, and all the receivers are set to DHCP.
I have ZERO issues with VOD, MRV, or DirecTV2PC.
The DECAs do seem to have a MAC address, but don't pull an IP address and so don't show up in the router config page.


----------



## jaguar325

dminches said:


> Do you mean you already have 2 RG6 jacks or you need 2 RG6 jacks? I thought with SWM there is one coaxial run per DVR.


I have twin RG6 jacks now.. don't see any reason to install SWM.


----------



## MyDogHasFleas

Thank you all it's quite clear now.

BTW the 169 addresses are known as link-local addresses.


----------



## ffemtreed

MyDogHasFleas said:


> Thank you all it's quite clear now.
> 
> BTW the 169 addresses are known as link-local addresses.


Yes the 169.X.X.X is the default address you get when DHCP fails.

So what some of you are telling me is that you can run both Ethernet and DECA simultaneously on a single receiver? I thought I remember reading somewhere that this was how it was supposed to work. I thought it either had to be DECA or Ethernet.

And also technically your DECA gateway wouldn't need an IP address to pass data on the LAN, but it would need an IP address to get out to the internet through a router.

I would love to put a packet sniffer on the DECA bridge to see what is actually being passed.


----------



## RAD

ffemtreed said:


> Yes the 169.X.X.X is the default address you get when DHCP fails.
> 
> So what some of you are telling me is that you can run both Ethernet and DECA simultaneously on a single receiver? I thought I remember reading somewhere that this was how it was supposed to work. I thought it either had to be DECA or Ethernet.


If it's a H24/HR24 when you connect a cable to the ethernet port the internal DECA adapter is disabled. A reboot of the receiver is necessary to change the connection method.


----------



## ffemtreed

RAD said:


> If it's a H24/HR24 when you connect a cable to the ethernet port the internal DECA adapter is disabled. A reboot of the receiver is necessary to change the connection method.


Which is exactly what I thought. I am really confused over how DECA works now.

From the sounds of things from what people are describing is that DECA is just an old school ethernet bus network with a fancy new protocol built onto it and still using TCP/IP. I really don't see the point of that I have a good feeling I am getting the wrong impression here.


----------



## Doug Brott

Read through the first couple of posts in the following thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174343

This should help answer a lot of the questions.

DECA is the transport mechanism, just like Ethernet is the transport mechanism in a switch. TCP/IP is running a level higher than that. So yes, there will be an IP address @ the receiver in both cases. The DECA module basically bridges between the coax (DECA) and Cat-5 (Ethernet). Other than converting between cable types and the transport mechanism, the two technologies will give you similar functionality.

DECA is the right choice for MRV unless you are trying to save money because you already have equipment and cabling installed and are happy with the MRV results.


----------



## stevewallace

jdspencer said:


> I'm hoping that MRV won't come out of beta until they fix it to allow cooperative scheduling.


Admittedly, I don't come here as often as I used to so don't jump me, but I thought this was already done? I never read it, but from a non-DVR box (H21 I think) I was able to schedule a recording on another DVR in my house. In fact, it asked me which one, since I have two. All that I did was hit the record button in the guide. I didn't think that feature was there, but I was completely impressed!


----------



## Beerstalker

Yes it does work from H2x to HR2x. We would like to see it work from HR2x to HR2x. Not sure when or if that will happen, but I am fairly certain it won't be before the beta period is up.


----------



## mybighog

I have 2 hr20-700 receivers a hr21-700 and a h21 hd reciever. I have them all connected with a cat5 ethernet through my internet and router switch, I ahve been getting flawless mrv playback in all rooms and am verry happy with the hd picture quality in all rooms through mrv playback. My question is will directv cut off the ethernet setup and dissable my setup if and when they do a full roll out of there new deca system they are testing? Or will i be safe with my setup just with no technical support through directv? Thanks for anyone that responds.


----------



## Beerstalker

It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. You will still be able to use your ethernet network, but you will have to pay the $3/month fee. Also, if you have any issues with MRV not working correctly D* will not help you troubleshoot your network, you will have to upgrade to DECA in order to receive support from them.


----------



## menkelis

I just took the plunge into 'DECA' (Portland,OR).

I currently have a SWM8 (self installed) that connects two HR-20's and
two old STB's using the legacy ports. One of the HR20's uses a 'power-line'
adaptor to get ethernet, and does show some MRV playing issues.

The CSR told me that my old STB's would go dark when DECA is installed and that I MUST upgrade them both. The CSR did say that his computer showed that one of my
old STB's was HD compatable (I never knew that) and that one will be switched to a
newer HD box. Both of these new boxs will also need 'filters' installed.

I was also told that I will be receiving a "direct-networking router" for connection to my
hardwared network.

So sometime this Friday between 4 and 8pm I am expecting the installer to show up
and on Saturday a replacement HR20 (code 0x77 on hard disk).


----------



## Doug Brott

If you have an H20 or even a farther back legacy HD receiver, they will probably upgrade that to an H24. If you are getting a replacement for a broken HR20 and DECA/MRV at the same time, they may replace it with an HR24 (good for you if they do).

I haven't actually heard of anyone getting the new broadband deca devices, but that might be what the terminology was referencing. If not, a standard DECA module can serve that function just fine. I'm pretty sure the only difference is the packaging.

Come back after the installation and let us know how it went.


----------



## menkelis

I never thought of that. I talked to the CSR about my HR20 last night
and did not know then that Portland was a DECA beta test area.

My old STB's are a not H??? box's (RCA and Mitshubi) and I know the Samsung is not.


----------



## Doug Brott

menkelis said:


> I never thought of that. I talked to the CSR about my HR20 last night
> and did not know then that Portland was a DECA beta test area.
> 
> My old STB's are a not H??? box's (RCA and Mitshubi) and I know the Samsung is not.


If they are not HD and it's a non-DVR, they may be upgraded to a D12 which is an SD box capable of working with SWiM .. necessary for the DECA upgrade. Other options are an H21 or H23 + DECA module.


----------



## chuck5395

After deciding that we really liked MVR but the PowerLine Ethernet would not work, I placed an order for the DECA solution. Tech will be out this Thursday between 4-7pm.

R15-500 Standard Def DVR will be replaced
2 D11-500 Standard Def receivers will be replaced.

I'll report back what I learn.


----------



## menkelis

After re-reading the post on connecting up a DECA network something struck me as odd
with reguards to comments on MRV running through a seperate DECA cloud.

In the diagram, there is a "network-GW" connected DECA that connects to your home
network. Then there are the DECA box at each receiver.

With this setup, each receiver can MRV -- OR -- do a download on demand from the
Internet using your home network.

So, unless my understanding of networks is way off, your home network will be seeing
the same MRV traffic as if the receiver was just directly connected without using a DECA. Maybe the "network-GW" does some of packet filtering to prevent your "home"
network from flooding the DECA cloud, but to my understanding (at least for now) that
all the DECA units are exactly the same.

At home a have a small 5-port switch behind the DVR.
port #1 is to <home network>
port #2 is to <HR20>
port #3 is to <PS/3>

After DECA is installed tommorow, I plan on connecting it's cat-5 to port #4
of the switch, too tie the DECA cloud into the Internet.

So unless I am missing something, I do not see how D*TV can be saying that MRV will only work on a DECA
network unless the DECA is kept isolated from the 'wild' users home network.


----------



## bobnielsen

Nobody (nobody who is credible, that is) is saying that MRV will only work on a DECA network.

A switch, as opposed to a hub, should only allow traffic addressed to devices which are reachable through a specific port (such as those device in the DECA cloud) to be sent via that port. That would not be the case if you used a hub instead of a switch. To that extent, the DECA cloud is isolated from the rest of your network.


----------



## Dusty

menkelis said:


> After re-reading the post on connecting up a DECA network something struck me as odd
> with reguards to comments on MRV running through a seperate DECA cloud.
> 
> In the diagram, there is a "network-GW" connected DECA that connects to your home
> network. Then there are the DECA box at each receiver.
> 
> With this setup, each receiver can MRV -- OR -- do a download on demand from the
> Internet using your home network.
> 
> So, unless my understanding of networks is way off, your home network will be seeing
> the same MRV traffic as if the receiver was just directly connected without using a DECA. Maybe the "network-GW" does some of packet filtering to prevent your "home"
> network from flooding the DECA cloud, but to my understanding (at least for now) that
> all the DECA units are exactly the same.
> 
> At home a have a small 5-port switch behind the DVR.
> port #1 is to <home network>
> port #2 is to <HR20>
> port #3 is to <PS/3>
> 
> After DECA is installed tommorow, I plan on connecting it's cat-5 to port #4
> of the switch, too tie the DECA cloud into the Internet.
> 
> So unless I am missing something, I do not see how D*TV can be saying that MRV will only work on a DECA
> network unless the DECA is kept isolated from the 'wild' users home network.


Actually, the configuration will be connecting your port #2 to the DECA gateway. Your HR20's ethernet port will be connected to the DECA adapter of that HR20. DECA adapters and gateways are connected through coaxial cables.


----------



## harsh

menkelis said:


> So unless I am missing something, I do not see how D*TV can be saying that MRV will only work on a DECA network unless the DECA is kept isolated from the 'wild' users home network.


The switch built into your router should isolate the regular LAN from the DECA cloud traffic. It knows what devices are coming in on what ports and if it recognizes that both addresses are on the same port, it ignores the data as they're obviously connected some other way.


----------



## dtvnetfan

Hi all,

I just installed LinkSys PLS300's powerline ethernet ... I have 2 HR22's dtv tuners that cannot see each other, yet they are online, VOD works great, I can stream to my PC etc etc ... but MRV will NOT work thru the PLS300s ... the DVRs remain invisible. I've also tried router and dvr resets, opt ins and outs etc etc etc. I am new to the talk forum, so I am wondering if anybody ever found a solution to this problem? I'm really trying to fix this before I'm considering the DECA solution. Thanks!


----------



## menkelis

I did a little clean-up around the SWM for access by the installer.
This is also where my DSL modem is mounted, and I remembered that
there are still four unused ethernet ports on the modem and power outlet just
below.
So to make a cleaner install I will ask the installer to attach the DECA router at
this location if possible, as it is getting a little messy behind the TV.

Also I was advised by the CSR to ask the installer if they have a HR24 in the truck
for replacing my failing (disk drive bad) HR20.


----------



## Dusty

menkelis said:


> I did a little clean-up around the SWM for access by the installer.
> This is also where my DSL modem is mounted, and I remembered that
> there are still four unused ethernet ports on the modem and power outlet just
> below.
> So to make a cleaner install I will ask the installer to attach the DECA router at
> this location if possible, as it is getting a little messy behind the TV.
> 
> Also I was advised by the CSR to ask the installer if they have a HR24 in the truck
> for replacing my failing (disk drive bad) HR20.


I am also in Portland area. I was told by CSR for similar things. Good luck with the HR24. Didn't happen for me. It won't be on the DECA installation work order. The installer will call the supervisor to get that authorized. If you get the same supervisor I did, he will tell you the CSR was mistaken. They will only replace non-SWiM compatible machines. Your HR2x is compatible so not covered.


----------



## menkelis

I just received a phone call from the installer, wanting to know if he can be over before 4pm. I said I could be home by 3:15 if that helps, but it was decided to keep the 4pm time.
I asked him if there was a chance a HR24 would be in the truck to get my dead HR20 replaced. He said YES.


----------



## Movieman

menkelis said:


> I just received a phone call from the installer, wanting to know if he can be over before 4pm. I said I could be home by 3:15 if that helps, but it was decided to keep the 4pm time.
> I asked him if there was a chance a HR24 would be in the truck to get my dead HR20 replaced. He said YES.


Just dont be upset if he cant provide you with HR24 or doesnt have one. Sometimes that morning their inventory can change. Only thing I would like to know is if you upgrade to DECA can you to remote scheduling from DVR to DVR?


----------



## Bigg

RAD said:


> If it's a H24/HR24 when you connect a cable to the ethernet port the internal DECA adapter is disabled. A reboot of the receiver is necessary to change the connection method.


Too bad they couldn't have made an HR24 the bridge between ethernet and DECA for setups where that would work, but I guess they didn't want to put any extra traffic on a box?

What is the DECA pricing for a new install? Will they allow a new sub to sign up for MRV right off the bat without a DECA install (Ethernet)?


----------



## menkelis

Banging my head agenst the wall...

Current setup: 2xHR20 on SWM8, 2xSD on legacy ports SWM8.

The Installer showed up at 5:30pm to install MRV/DECA.

First off EVERY 'F' connector on cables has to be changed.
Oh no, a SWM8 installed. Remove it and install LNB5-SWM.
Now lets install D12, H24 and HR24, download software.
Time to register boxs -- What too low a signal they will not register.
Lets now reverse everything.

Installer leaves with D12, H24, HR24 and DECA modules at 9:30pm
Someone should be over soon to see about relocating dish.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

menkelis said:


> Banging my head agenst the wall...
> 
> Current setup: 2xHR20 on SWM8, 2xSD on legacy ports SWM8.
> 
> The Installer showed up at 5:30pm to install MRV/DECA.
> 
> First off EVERY 'F' connector on cables has to be changed.
> Oh no, a SWM8 installed. Remove it and install LNB5-SWM.
> Now lets install D12, H24 and HR24, download software.
> Time to register boxs -- What too low a signal they will not register.
> Lets now reverse everything.
> 
> Installer leaves with D12, H24, HR24 and DECA modules at 9:30pm
> Someone should be over soon to see about relocating dish.


This is a duplicate of what you posted in another thread. Why?

Having to change all your coax connectors to do the install is supect...although in some cases, I've seen it done. If they were old/original crimp-style connectors, then putting on new compression-type connectors would be a smart move by any installer.

The information in your post also is cryptic in many ways, and impossible to help without a whole lot more informatoin on how you are set up.

Again, I have to wonder why you are reporting this identical post in multiple locations. Many here at DBSTlk would like to help, but need you to provide a clearer picture of how you are set up - starting with your current status (SWM Dish or SWM8?, PI location, etc.).


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This is a duplicate of what you posted in another thread.


I'm guessing that it may have something to do with a failed upgrade that left them with limited or no DIRECTV service.


----------



## Movieman

Bigg said:


> Too bad they couldn't have made an HR24 the bridge between ethernet and DECA for setups where that would work, but I guess they didn't want to put any extra traffic on a box?
> 
> *What is the DECA pricing for a new install?* Will they allow a new sub to sign up for MRV right off the bat without a DECA install (Ethernet)?


As far as I have read its going to be about $99. Also, you dont need DECA to have MRV.


----------



## menkelis

Sorry just venting late last night.

I have not had in the past that great a experence with ironwood installers.
Last year it took two weeks, and three moves of a 'set in cement' post by three
people and a supervisor to find a 'sweet' spot. The installer did not have proper
equipement to route cables, so we ended up running half way down side of house to
splice into existing cables entering house.

I do concede that the existing wireing inside house was using crimp-on ends.
After all the house is 19 years old. But the cables ran from house to LNB did
have compression fittings from last install.

I bought a SWM8 and installed it in place of WB68.
Legacy port #1 goes to RCA, upstairs bedroom.
Legacy port #2 goes to Mitsubishi,upstairs bedroom.
SWM port #1 goes to HR20-100, upstairs bedroom.
SWM port #2 goes to HR20-700, Family room.
I did not have a SWM splitter, and only hooking up two receivers that could use it.
The signal levels from the HD sat's were a little on the low side, but the HR20's did
lock on to them.

So now all the wires had the ends replaced.
Next step was to remove the SWM8 and it's PI brick, and install LNB5 with biult-in SWM
and it's new PI brick. In place of my SWM8 a 1-to-8 splitter was installed.
One port of that went to DECA that connected to my DSL modem-router and it's
PI brick plugged in.

Pulled RCA box, installed filter, then D12 box.
Pulled Mitsubishi box, installed H24 box. Did a software download.
Installed DECA + splitter + filter on HR20-100 box. Did a software download.
Pulled HR20-700, installed HR24 box. Did a software download.

The D12 box found no signal, replaced with another D12 same thing.
The HR20-100 was live and happy.
The H24 was showing setup screen prompting if a "wavier" was approved to continue.
The HR24 was showing setup screen prompting if a "waver" was approved to continue.

Installer could not reach supervisor, so decided to restore to original setup.
Removed all DECA and filters. Removed SWM-splitter, removed LNB5-SWM, PI brick.
Installed my SWM8 and PI brick. replaced D12 with RCA box, replaced H24 with Mitsubishi, replaced HR24 with HR20-700. All box's back to live TV.

I asked why not just install filter connecting to SWM-splitter, then move all four wires
to the splitter, connect DECA to splitter. Was told that SWM8 would not work.

If you request specific sat and signal levels from my HR20's I will post them.

Again, sorry for the duplicat post.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

menkelis said:


> Sorry just venting late last night.
> 
> I have not had in the past that great a experence with ironwood installers.
> Last year it took two weeks, and three moves of a 'set in cement' post by three people and a supervisor to find a 'sweet' spot. The installer did not have proper equipement to route cables, so we ended up running half way down side of house to splice into existing cables entering house.
> 
> I do concede that the existing wireing inside house was using crimp-on ends.
> After all the house is 19 years old. But the cables ran from house to LNB did
> have compression fittings from last install.
> 
> .......
> 
> Again, sorry for the duplicat post.


Your updated post provided a great deal of helpful information, in terms of starting to hone in on potential issues. Appreciate the explanation on the crimp ends - I would have recommended to change all of them out to compression ends as well (I once did 48 of those here) to assure a quality coax end connection.

It also sounds like some of the setup may be partially amuck based on the installer's abilities (or lack therof). Some of us have been there before too.

You obviously had some issues with the legacy units and connections. In addition, there may be some issues in terms of getting a good signal strength on your HR24.

Not sure what kind of splitters were used...but those could be a contributor to some of those symptoms - they must be port-passing, and for the right frequency range - any old splitter will not do....especially on the newer HD equipment. Finally....based on your results, even the Dish alignment may be in question.

I'd call the installation group again...let them know your install was unsatisfactory..and this time...they should send a supervisor to get it done correctly.


----------



## Doug Brott

menkelis,

The problem you are seeing is that the installer did not do something right. If the signals are not good, the box doesn't let them go to the next step. It's bad that he got it wrong, but good that he's forced to get it right. Hopefully they get someone out that can actually do the work as it seems like it's "close but no cigar." Sorry to hear about the troubles.


----------



## Bigg

Movieman said:


> As far as I have read its going to be about $99. Also, you dont need DECA to have MRV.


Wow, screw that, it would be cheaper to pull CAT-5 beforehand...


----------



## Doug Brott

Bigg said:


> Wow, screw that, it would be cheaper to pull CAT-5 beforehand...


$70 for the cable alone .. Doesn't account for anything else, including the fact that Coax has to be pulled anyway for the Sat feed .. Cabling is "free" with DECA.


----------



## ffemtreed

Doug Brott said:


> $70 for the cable alone .. Doesn't account for anything else, including the fact that Coax has to be pulled anyway for the Sat feed .. Cabling is "free" with DECA.


$70 dollars to buy Cat 5 cable???

I can buy 1000Ft spool of Cat 5e or Cat 6 for 50 or 60 dollars. Way more than any residential install will need.

To order custom made cables you can get the following depending on what length you need.

30 ft cable =$3.30 
50 ft cable =$4.57
75 ft cable=$6.98
100 ft cable =$8.88

From what I can determine about all these DECA threads is, if you need receiver upgrades then the DECA upgrade is well worth the money.

If you already have a working HD solution and all you want it MRV then its probably cheaper to just run some CAT 5e or Cat 6 cable yourself. Although this solution won't get you a SWM system, you need to think about how much a SWM system would benefit you and see if that is worth the cost. Unless you plan on adding receivers or upgrading a non DVR to a DVR a SWM system isn't going to do much for you.

In my personal case, getting DECA installed for me would actually cause me to have to run an extra coax to each of my receivers for OTA. (DTV doesn't have locals in my area). You completly lose the ability to Diplex when you go to DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

ffemtreed said:


> Unless you plan on adding receivers or upgrading a non DVR to a DVR a SWM system isn't going to do much for you.


While I don't disagree with most of your post, I think you may be short changing what SWM can do: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=175580


----------



## ffemtreed

veryoldschool said:


> While I don't disagree with most of your post, I think you may be short changing what SWM can do: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=175580


I guess I am one of the few who don't consider rain fade a problem. I lose signal about 3 or 4 times a year for like 5 minutes each time. I really havn't noticed any difference ever since i upgraded myself to SWM. But yes, if you are having problems with rainfade then an upgrade to SWM might help out some of your problems.

My personal opinion is that most people who have problems with rainfade is because of poor installations or LOS issues.


----------



## Doug Brott

ffemtreed said:


> In my personal case, getting DECA installed for me would actually cause me to have to run an extra coax to each of my receivers for OTA. (DTV doesn't have locals in my area). You completly lose the ability to Diplex when you go to DECA.


If you already have two cables for a legacy installation, moving to SWiM will leave you a free cable for OTA


----------



## ffemtreed

Doug Brott said:


> If you already have two cables for a legacy installation, moving to SWiM will leave you a free cable for OTA


I yanked all my old cabling out when I upgraded myself to SWM since I wanted all new coax. The old cable was brittle and looked like it was the original cable that was installed when the house was built in the 70's. Plus there was only 1 cable ran to the other locations other than my TV room.

I like my SWM system because I have a live drop in every room and I have a floating receiver that I can easily go room to room with and pretty much plug and view.


----------



## Movieman

Bigg said:


> Wow, screw that, it would be cheaper to pull CAT-5 beforehand...


Not saying that DECA is not good, cheaper, or more expensive. I have done the math and regardless of what is posted here DECA isnt the cheapest but its a good solution if you dont already have one. If you already have a working option then DECA is not necessary and it doesnt add any services for its cost. But I do understand the posts about support and such which will come in handy for Joe Six Pack.



Doug Brott said:


> *$70 for the cable alone *.. Doesn't account for anything else, including the fact that Coax has to be pulled anyway for the Sat feed .. Cabling is "free" with DECA.


----------



## Doug Brott

Movieman said:


>


monoprice 1000' .. Look it up. But yeah, probably 95% of the folks here are IT guys and would take it from work for free. That's not the point.


----------



## Movieman

Doug Brott said:


> monoprice 1000' .. Look it up. *But yeah, probably 95% of the folks here are IT guys and would take it from work for free.* That's not the point.


Now that i have to agree with. :lol: Your point is taken. A regular consumer that might know where to find the prices would be over paying and most likely not understand about panels and powerline adapters, etc. Its clearly pointed out that DECA will be the better long term solution for MRV and maybe even VOD use but it needs to be understood as well that if you already have a solid working solution for MRV and VOD (or anything else that requires networking) DECA is not a requirement but a luxury. For those that dont have it doesnt hurt to just go with DECA since its still going to be very close to the cost of lets say powerline bridges rather than having a professional come out, install DECA, and then have full support from Directv especially if its still going to cost $3 per month. I think we just have varied points on this thread. DECA is a great solution but not the end all of MRV if you dont get DECA. Those of us that have hardwired networks or other solutions will be perfectly fine for the new future unless something unforeseen happens that would cause someone to need a DECA upgrade.

The real benefit I see i straight upgrade to HR24 but that will be a little bit longer to wait for. In that case you get the full advantages of real MRV (remote scheduling from all STB's, MRV, VOD, etc.)


----------



## Doug Brott

I think you must have missed the point where I said .. If you like what you've got already, then stick with that because it will be cheaper. But, if you're getting new equipment anyway .. Go with DECA as that's the right solution and the better long term answer. Besides, this is only for MRV ..


----------



## menkelis

On Wed. 3:30 we plan on moving the post. I asked if trying the dish on a tripod mount
to check signal strength might be helpful, but was assured that a few feet to the right
should be it [ move #4  ].

The H24 and HR24 looked nice for the hour that I had them, and seemed to boot quicker.
The "direct internet router" looked just like another DECA, connected to the splitter
and into my house network. The HR20-100 was a little more tricky, as a splitter is
connected to SAT1 and SAT2 to power the DECA.


----------



## waylonrobert

So, I'm a little confused. If you don't use DECA you will be charged $3/month for MRV over your own ethernet and will be unsupported by D*? Or are you charged $3/month regardless of DECA or ethernet? And is that per account or per receiver?


----------



## RAD

waylonrobert said:


> So, I'm a little confused. If you don't use DECA you will be charged $3/month for MRV over your own ethernet and will be unsupported by D*? Or are you charged $3/month regardless of DECA or ethernet? And is that per account or per receiver?


It's $3/month be it DECA connection or your own ethernet network. And that charge is per account, not per receiver.


----------



## Doug Brott

Correct .. The fee basically enables MRV .. It will work over Ethernet or DECA .. DECA is preferred, but not required. Wireless and power line should be considered nonos especially if you are buying equipment for MRV.


----------



## Movieman

waylonrobert said:


> So, I'm a little confused. If you don't use DECA you will be charged $3/month for MRV over your own ethernet and will be unsupported by D*? Or are you charged $3/month regardless of DECA or ethernet? And is that per account or per receiver?


You are correct. Its $3 either way but if you have DECA Directv will support your setup. If you have anything other than DECA you are on your own for support. The fee has it seems to be in the test markets is that its per account.


----------



## waylonrobert

Ah, that makes sense. Good to hear D* being reasonable about the monthly fee. Do we yet know how much a DECA dongle will cost?


----------



## RAD

waylonrobert said:


> Ah, that makes sense. Good to hear D* being reasonable about the monthly fee. Do we yet know how much a DECA dongle will cost?


There has been no costs provided since currently DirecTV is saying no self installs, you need to get the $99 DECA upgrade package.


----------



## Movieman

waylonrobert said:


> Ah, that makes sense. Good to hear D* being reasonable about the monthly fee. Do we yet know how much a DECA dongle will cost?


There are many posts but nothing for sure yet.



RAD said:


> There has been no costs provided since currently *DirecTV is saying no self installs,* you need to get the $99 DECA upgrade package.


When I called to confirm some changes to my programming they did say that self install was $99 but professional installation would be $150. Im not in a test market so the rep I spoke to might have given me a good guess but they didnt say that self install was out of the question especially since i have SWM already in my setup.


----------



## Doug Brott

Movieman said:


> When I called to confirm some changes to my programming they did say that self install was $99 but professional installation would be $150. Im not in a test market so the rep I spoke to might have given me a good guess but they didnt say that self install was out of the question especially since i have SWM already in my setup.


I'm not sure if it's been 100% determined or not on self installs. SWiM could be involved making a self install much more difficult than if it were just DECA modules. Each installation situation will be different.

My guess is that self-install will not be allowed, but it is conceivable that 3rd party vendors will have parts you can buy at some point.


----------



## Narnboy1

D*'S monthly video showed DECA as the only supported medium, but it stated ethernet will work for DOD and Direc*2PC. They are not supporting ethernet at all.

D* is trying a single all encompassing wire system. Hey like Cable. 

One of their bigger touts is that the customer will not have to run separate network wire. Even if they have Home Plug, they want us to disconnect it. Remove it and then Give it to they customer. Tell them that the Home Plug is theirs and leave it with them.

I can't remember if explicitly states, but I am pretty sure it stated after the MRV Beta. MRV only can be implimented if the account was notated to DECA installed.

AND AFTER MRV BETA, ANY FURTHER MRV will cost $3/month/account.

The implied benefit: 
While coax is technially a bus network.
No extra full drags of wire to each location. Its all spliced off of one wire.
My Speculation
Keeping the two networks separated will limit a bottle neck of extraneous network traffic.
The DECA may be hard coded with D* specific network protocol variation.

The negating factor:
It introduces more connections and devices to fail on a satellite lines.


----------



## usnret

If I get D's DECA installed for MRV in my home, can the DECA be utilized for anything else along with MRV?


----------



## Movieman

usnret said:


> If I get D's DECA installed for MRV in my home, can the DECA be utilized for anything else along with MRV?


Not sure if this is what you meant but you will be able to use it for DOD, Mediashare, and Direct2PC which are services you can get now without DECA.


----------



## dsw2112

usnret said:


> If I get D's DECA installed for MRV in my home, can the DECA be utilized for anything else along with MRV?


In addition to what movieman said you could attach an ethernet switch to a DECA dongle and allow internet access for your Xbox, BD player, etc. Some of the DECA beta testers have noted doing this, but it's no doubt "unsupported" and would likely be frowned upon from a D* standpoint...


----------



## usnret

Am sure that D would sell extra dongle's , or can one purchase them from somewhere else?


----------



## veryoldschool

usnret said:


> Am sure that D would sell extra dongle's , or can one purchase them from somewhere else?


"Currently" DirecTV will come out and install/upgrade you to DECA.
So far this is the only way to get them.
$99 upgrade for "everything you need", plus $49 service call.
Currently there are no other options.


----------



## RobertE

usnret said:


> Am sure that D would sell extra dongle's , or can one purchase them from somewhere else?


As the DECAs are going to be a DirecTv product, I'm not sure if or when they may make it into the 3rd party distribution chain.


----------



## Daddyo

A simple question on DECA:

Can I use the ethernet port on the back of the DTV receiver to feed the network connection to another device in my media cabinet (i.e. my PS3)? I know it was possible before, just wanted to make sure it would still work with DECA.


----------



## dsw2112

Daddyo said:


> A simple question on DECA:
> 
> Can I use the ethernet port on the back of the DTV receiver to feed the network connection to another device in my media cabinet (i.e. my PS3)? I know it was possible before, just wanted to make sure it would still work with DECA.


If you are speaking of an Hx24 then no. When an ethernet cable is plugged into a 24 it disables the DECA (i.e. no crossover between the two.) If you are referring to a DECA dongle on an HX20-HX23 then an ethernet switch can be added to the dongle and additional devices used.

P.S. even though it was possible to use the additional port prior it was never recommended. It does not function as a true switch and steals clock cycles from the DVR. Use an ethernet switch instead of that port.


----------



## Beerstalker

I'm sure eventually you will be able to get DECA units. I don't see D* giving up on that revenue. You will have people that have D* installs that they disconnect and they will have DECA units throughout their homes that they will sell on ebay, and other online sites. Once D* sees that they will start selling them so they aren't totally missing out on all those sales.

I suppose D* might start making customers return the DECA units with their receivers when they terminate service, but with the move to H24/HR24s I don't really think they will do that.


----------



## Daddyo

Personally, I can't wait to give this a shot. I moved into a new house 2 years ago and have been mulling over a way to get another cable line from the 3rd floor attic to the living room on the ground floor since the day we moved in. I can finally feed my HD-DVR with two lines AND network! Amazing!


----------



## veryoldschool

Beerstalker said:


> I'm sure eventually you will be able to get DECA units. I don't see D* giving up on that revenue. You will have people that have D* installs that they disconnect and they will have DECA units throughout their homes that they will sell on ebay, and other online sites. Once D* sees that they will start selling them so they aren't totally missing out on all those sales.
> 
> I suppose D* might start making customers return the DECA units with their receivers when they terminate service, but with the move to H24/HR24s I don't really think they will do that.


Currently the upgrade package cost is, or can be, below cost for the adapters, so look for a significant increase in price if these ever become "mainstream retail".
If MoCA units are any guide, then these would be $70+ each.


----------



## Beerstalker

Daddyo said:


> Personally, I can't wait to give this a shot. I moved into a new house 2 years ago and have been mulling over a way to get another cable line from the 3rd floor attic to the living room on the ground floor since the day we moved in. I can finally feed my HD-DVR with two lines AND network! Amazing!


Sounds like you will be a good candidate for the MRV/DECA upgrade once it becomes available in your area (should be sometime in May).



veryoldschool said:


> Currently the upgrade package cost is, or can be, below cost for the adapters, so look for a significant increase in price if these ever become "mainstream retail".
> If MoCA units are any guide, then these would be $70+ each.


True, but I imagine they will be much cheaper on ebay, just like SWM equipment is right now. SWM LNB/PI/Splitter on ebay for around $40 compared to around $100 at Solidsignal.


----------



## veryoldschool

Beerstalker said:


> True, but I imagine they will be much cheaper on ebay, just like SWM equipment is right now. SWM LNB/PI/Splitter on ebay for around $40 compared to around $100 at Solidsignal.


:lol:
Yeah, a lot of "suppliers" seemed to have had them "fall off" the back of a truck, bring their cost down significantly.


----------



## wavemaster

Right now via Ethernet I can see my music and supported media that is stored in a NAS box from any of the DVR's can this still be done using DECA? Or how does DECA integrate with the current Ethernet network?


----------



## harsh

wavemaster said:


> Or how does DECA integrate with the current Ethernet network?


It plugs directly into your wired network via an additional DECA adapter.


----------



## wavemaster

So devices on the DECA net would still be discoverable on the Ethernet net?


----------



## lugnutathome

The way you do currently, unless you are using the DTV box as your media rendering platform at the TV end. Your DECA network would be a separate self contained network that would only interface to your existing network via a single port (assuming you choose to connect it for purposes of VOD).

I've network capable AV receivers, TV's and PS3s that all do the AV over IP traffic rendering so my HR2x receivers do not need to duplicate that technology and I only network connect for MRV and the occasional VOD.

The one problem I see in the DECA realm is if you are using your DTV receivers for these media sharing functions from say a large PC media server and you have multiple receivers and concurrent streams running its all limited to a single port out off your network into the DECA cloud. On the other hand all IP traffic between the DTV receivers themselves will never touch your network.

Don "hope I made sense there" Bolton


----------



## dsw2112

wavemaster said:


> So devices on the DECA net would still be discoverable on the Ethernet net?


Yes, a DECA dongle will connect to your router, switch, etc... This bridges the gap between the two.


----------



## lugnutathome

So with the dongle you have a dual path connection to not only the DECA cloud but also the network directly?

I understood DECA to connect external at the cloud level and that the receivers would be captive to it.

Don "seems like IP addressing conflicts could exist here" Bolton


dsw2112 said:


> Yes, a DECA dongle will connect to your router, switch, etc... This bridges the gap between the two.


----------



## Steve

lugnutathome said:


> [...] Don "seems like IP addressing conflicts could exist here" Bolton


Even though the boxes are connected to the LAN via DECA, they see the LAN gateway and DHCP server just as if they were connected directly to a switch.

Think of DECA as a bridge from the "cloud" devices to the switch.


----------



## dsw2112

lugnutathome said:


> The one problem I see in the DECA realm is if you are using your DTV receivers for these media sharing functions from say a large PC media server and you have multiple receivers and concurrent streams running its all limited to a single port out off your network into the DECA cloud....


This is actually as it should be (you would not want multiple connection points from DECA to your network.) At some point you "could" potentially overwhelm the DECA bridge to your network, but it is rated for 175Mbps. MRV streaming won't cross the network bridge, so that will be of no consequence. Most people's media servers would get overwhelmed (serving data) long before the connection would pose a problem.


----------



## dsw2112

lugnutathome said:


> So with the dongle you have a dual path connection to not only the DECA cloud but also the network directly?
> 
> I understood DECA to connect external at the cloud level and that the receivers would be captive to it.
> 
> Don "seems like IP addressing conflicts could exist here" Bolton


"Dual path" would probably not be the correct terminology; maybe the better phrasing would be a path to the network. I'm not really sure what you mean by saying "the receivers would be captive to it..."


----------



## lugnutathome

That the receiver's IP traffic would be contained (captive) to the DECA cloud except at the single point where the cloud connected to the home network.

Also if the DECA cloud has a higher mb rating than 10/100, its' port out of the cloud is gigabit or just 10/100?

Don "the more I know the dumber I feel" Bolton



dsw2112 said:


> "Dual path" would probably not be the correct terminology; maybe the better phrasing would be a path to the network. I'm not really sure what you mean by saying "the receivers would be captive to it..."


----------



## lugnutathome

I understood this to be the case. The other responders statement "Yes, a DECA dongle will connect to your router, switch, etc... This bridges the gap between the two" implied to me they were doing so directly. Hence my inquiry.

I had understood they connected through "the base" of the cloud making that single port the LAN port for all IP traffic excluding MRV for all the receivers in the cloud.

Don "which you confirmed. Thanks" Bolton



Steve said:


> Even though the boxes are connected to the LAN via DECA, they see the LAN gateway and DHCP server just as if they were connected directly to a switch.
> 
> Think of DECA as a bridge from the "cloud" devices to the switch.


----------



## Bigg

DECA should be good for a real-world 70mbps like MoCA, since it is MoCA, just with adapted frequencies to work with DirecTV. The DirecTV boxes on MoCA are still on your home network, they are just using a "no new wires" connection, just like MoCA, HPNA, PowerlineAV, etc. They are still addressed by your router, and they are still on your LAN. You can't choke on the 100mbps internet connection, since DECA won't be able to handle 100mbps. It will handle plenty for streaming though, as DirecTV's steams are <10mbps each.


----------



## veryoldschool

Bigg said:


> DECA should be good for a real-world 70mbps like MoCA, since it is MoCA, just with adapted frequencies to work with DirecTV. The DirecTV boxes on MoCA are still on your home network, they are just using a "no new wires" connection, just like MoCA, HPNA, PowerlineAV, etc. They are still addressed by your router, and they are still on your LAN. You can't choke on the 100mbps internet connection, since DECA won't be able to handle 100mbps. It will handle plenty for streaming though, as DirecTV's steams are <10mbps each.


"Generally" you're correct.
DirecTV's HD streams are higher than your "<10 Mb/s", and with trickplay, I've seen over 35 Mb/s.
MoCA/DECA version 1 is listed at 175 Mb/s. Real world may not be that high, and I'm not here to fight that battle.
The current record, I think, is 11 streams going on at the same time through DECA.


----------



## dsw2112

Bigg said:


> DECA should be good for a real-world 70mbps like MoCA, since it is MoCA, just with adapted frequencies to work with DirecTV. The DirecTV boxes on MoCA are still on your home network, they are just using a "no new wires" connection, just like MoCA, HPNA, PowerlineAV, etc. They are still addressed by your router, and they are still on your LAN. You can't choke on the 100mbps internet connection, since DECA won't be able to handle 100mbps. It will handle plenty for streaming though, as DirecTV's steams are <10mbps each.


VOS addressed the 100Mbps, but it's important to note that not everyone has a separate home network, and those that do may not want to bridge the two. DECA/MRV will function just fine without the bridge and a router is not needed to address the boxes (they will self address without a router present.)


----------



## Doug Brott

dsw2112 said:


> VOS addressed the 100Mbps, but it's important to note that not everyone has a separate home network, and those that do may not want to bridge the two. DECA/MRV will function just fine without the bridge and a router is not needed to address the boxes (they will self address without a router present.)


And to bring it back around .. The receivers would be captive to the DECA cloud in this configuration. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if that is the desire.


----------



## wavemaster

Doug Brott said:


> And to bring it back around .. The receivers would be captive to the DECA cloud in this configuration. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if that is the desire.


So I guess after all that, in order to keep the NAS box feeding the DVR's as well as all other media requests I should stay away from DECA for speed and corroboration reasons.

I think I understand it better now.

If you are new to it and have no network DECA will be easy to install and handle the MVR with ease.

If you already have a robust network, stick with that as it is faster and will allow sharing that you can't do with DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> So I guess after all that, in order to keep the NAS box feeding the DVR's as well as all other media requests I should stay away from DECA for speed and corroboration reasons.
> 
> I think I understand it better now.
> 
> If you are new to it and have no network DECA will be easy to install and handle the MVR with ease.
> 
> If you already have a robust network, stick with that as it is faster and will allow sharing that you can't do with DECA.


I don't think there is any situation where someone should "stay away" from DECA.
Some may not need to change to DECA, if their network is in place and working well for them.


----------



## bigmac94

Stuart Sweet said:


> Here's what I can tell you.
> 
> First of all I can't guarantee that MRV over DECA will be an improvement for you but a lot of people say it is, and you'll be able to get support for MRV through DIRECTV if you have DECA.
> 
> Without knowing a lot more about your router I wouldn't know if you could tweak it enough, but I can say (thanks to the network gurus here) that Ethernet itself is not really designed for a smooth video stream. DECA (or more properly, MoCA, the technology that underlies it) is designed that way from the ground up.
> 
> If there is an option to keep wired ethernet instead of DECA then you'll definitely still have to pay the $3. There have been a lot of statements on this site saying that you'll still be able to use wired ethernet.


Hello All..
If I may please,ask the hookup question a slightly different way....
What might be the advantage in calling Directv & Ordering A DECA
System with existing DVRs.(Have3DVRs & 1 Dv all Hr20s & H20)
Have 2 Hookups with only 1 line access. (limits the Dual tuners) the H20 is Hooked up here.
If You were to look at my system Y`All would see how we are hooked up & where.
What I`m asking is, Will DECA, When its hooked up deal with my 2 single line hookups and still enable me to use MRV.I can use MRV now,Quite nicely and lest I Jinx it,thats all I`m gonna say on it.
Obvious advantage is Directv Support for it with DECA. Will it be necessary to change out all the DVRs. Don`t have a problem with changing out the H20
Simply because there`s no harddrive.


----------



## dsw2112

Doug Brott said:


> And to bring it back around .. The receivers would be captive to the DECA cloud in this configuration. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if that is the desire.





wavemaster said:


> If you already have a robust network, stick with that as it is faster and will allow sharing that you can't do with DECA.


When DECA is connected to your network it will be an extension of your network (i.e. it will "share" everything just fine.) Doug's quote regarding captive receivers was referring to a DECA only network (not connected to customer LAN or internet gateway.)


----------



## wavemaster

I still don't understand how it will function with DHCP and discovery on the network.

At this point I'm not going to worry about it. Our setup is faster and has a lot more support (everything has Ethernet) then DECA ever will.

I can understand D's wish to make it simple on their end, but going away from Ethernet I think is a mistake when it comes to the "connected home". This is just going to splinter it worse. We're still working on convergence, I see this (DECA) as going the other way.


----------



## lugnutathome

Well from a networking standpoint it may not give you much BUT. You have 2 DVRs with single tuner service and a non internet capable HD receiver (the H20).

As part of the conversion you will get SWM which will enable BOTH tuners in ALL the DVRs each on a single line, and they will swap out the H20 for a receiver that has internet capability (a 99 dollar initial lease price right there).

So though you may not gain in network servicing you will gain in number of tuners you can use and get the H20 replaced by something that can utilize MRV...

A replacement for the H20 (H21 or H23 needs no hard drive it's the network LAN port that gets you MRV connected)

For you this would be a big win...

Don "whaddayawaitinfor?:grin:" Bolton


bigmac94 said:


> Hello All..
> If I may please,ask the hookup question a slightly different way....
> What might be the advantage in calling Directv & Ordering A DECA
> System with existing DVRs.(Have3DVRs & 1 Dv all Hr20s & H20)
> Have 2 Hookups with only 1 line access. (limits the Dual tuners) the H20 is Hooked up here.
> If You were to look at my system Y`All would see how we are hooked up & where.
> What I`m asking is, Will DECA, When its hooked up deal with my 2 single line hookups and still enable me to use MRV.I can use MRV now,Quite nicely and lest I Jinx it,thats all I`m gonna say on it.
> Obvious advantage is Directv Support for it with DECA. Will it be necessary to change out all the DVRs. Don`t have a problem with changing out the H20
> Simply because there`s no harddrive.


----------



## dsw2112

wavemaster said:


> I still don't understand how it will function with DHCP and discovery on the network.
> 
> At this point I'm not going to worry about it. Our setup is faster and has a lot more support (everything has Ethernet) then DECA ever will.
> 
> I can understand D's wish to make it simple on their end, but going away from Ethernet I think is a mistake when it comes to the "connected home". This is just going to splinter it worse. We're still working on convergence, I see this (DECA) as going the other way.


You're probably just making it a bit tougher than you have to. At the basic level you can just think of a DECA dongle as a way to convert your RJ45 jack (from your ethernet network) to a coaxial jack.

They're not going away from ethernet, they're just trying to make the wiring simpler for their techs. Having had the experience of wiring networks I've come to learn first hand that many in the IT world are surprisingly unskilled at the basics necessary to crimp connectors and color code wires. D* techs are already good at connecting the RG-6 for satellite, which is the very same wire that will transport the network signal with DECA.

The receivers ability to "auto-assign" DHCP settings is not a product of DECA, but rather a feature built into their software. If you attach two HR's with a CAT5 cable (no router or external DHCP device connected) the boxes will automatically "discover" each other and assign themselves IP addresses. As you can see this has nothing to do with DECA or your network. However, if the receivers are on your network (throught DECA, CAT5, or both) your router will utilize DHCP (if setup to do so) and assign IP's to them.

I hope that helps and makes sense.


----------



## harsh

bigmac94 said:


> Have 2 Hookups with only 1 line access. (limits the Dual tuners) the H20 is Hooked up here.


Part of the win with going to a DECA system is that your "single line" equipment will no longer be hobbled into having only a single tuner. DECA demands SWiM which fixes that problem.

Beyond that, DECA fully supports MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> I still don't understand how it will function with DHCP and discovery on the network.
> 
> At this point I'm not going to worry about it. Our setup is faster and has a lot more support (everything has Ethernet) then DECA ever will.
> 
> I can understand D's wish to make it simple on their end, but going away from Ethernet I think is a mistake when it comes to the "connected home". This is just going to splinter it worse. We're still working on convergence, I see this (DECA) as going the other way.


When there is no DHCP server available (say DECA only connection between receivers), DIRECTV supports link local addresses. So each receiver auto assigns itself a unique 169.254.x.x IP address. This makes it so each receiver can see the other receiver within that local IP address range. There is no need for a DHCP server for MRV to work. To get Media Share, DIRECTV2PC or any Internet based connections to work, you will need some sort of real IP address with routing set up. For just MRV, however, you do not need that.


----------



## dminches

veryoldschool said:


> "Currently" DirecTV will come out and install/upgrade you to DECA.
> So far this is the only way to get them.
> $99 upgrade for "everything you need", plus $49 service call.
> Currently there are no other options.


That $99 doesn't include SWM if you don't have that. That can increase the cost significantly.


----------



## RAD

dminches said:


> That $99 doesn't include SWM if you don't have that. That can increase the cost significantly.


Incorrect, that $99 includes either a SWiMLNB, SWiM8 or SWiM16 along with all DECA's needed, plus a $49 installation charge.


----------



## Movieman

RAD said:


> Incorrect, that $99 includes either a SWiMLNB, SWiM8 or SWiM16 along with all DECA's needed, plus a $49 installation charge.


Not to disagree with you but when I called (im not in a test market) I was told that the $99 was not including the SWM and would cost more. In my case I have SWM and they saw that in my account and stated that if I called back I would save $50 on the installation if I just ordered the DECA doggles for self installation. Im not sure how its working in the test market but the 2 reps I have spoken to (on totally different days) were clear that I didnt have to have a tech come out if I was able to do it myself.

Maybe once it goes national some of the final rules will be tweaked but this is what I have been told twice. BTW when I called it wasnt for MRV as I already have it in Beta it was for billing purposes.


----------



## RAD

dminches said:


> That $99 doesn't include SWM if you don't have that. That can increase the cost significantly.





Movieman said:


> Not to disagree with you but when I called (im not in a test market) I was told that the $99 was not including the SWM and would cost more. In my case I have SWM and they saw that in my account and stated that if I called back I would save $50 on the installation if I just ordered the DECA doggles for self installation. Im not sure how its working in the test market but the 2 reps I have spoken to (on totally different days) were clear that I didnt have to have a tech come out if I was able to do it myself.
> 
> Maybe once it goes national some of the final rules will be tweaked but this is what I have been told twice. BTW when I called it wasnt for MRV as I already have it in Beta it was for billing purposes.


That is not what we've been told by DirecTV exec's, the $99+$49 installation charge includes all the hardware, SWiM, DECA's, splitters and replacing any non-SWiM compatible receiver for a like which is SWiM compatible.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> That is not what we've been told by DirecTV exec's, the $99+$49 installation charge includes all the hardware, SWiM, DECA's, splitters and replacing any non-SWiM compatible receiver for a like which is SWiM compatible.


Until DECA becomes widely available, it is probably dangerous to bet either way.

Perhaps the upcoming earnings call will offer more definitive insight.


----------



## veryoldschool

RAD said:


> That is not what we've been told by DirecTV exec's, the $99+$49 installation charge includes all the hardware, SWiM, DECA's, splitters and replacing any non-SWiM compatible receiver for a like which is SWiM compatible.





harsh said:


> Until DECA becomes widely available, it is probably dangerous to bet either way.
> 
> Perhaps the upcoming earnings call will offer more definitive insight.


Harsh don't even try to comment on things you don't have a clue about.
Rad & I both have had access to those running this program.
$99 + service call is EXACTLY what it will cost for SWiM + DECA + any receivers swapped to work with SWiM.
The training for CSRs is what need more work. The program has been defined from the top down. It's the lowest levels that have yet to come up to speed.


----------



## Movieman

veryoldschool said:


> Harsh don't even try to comment on things you don't have a clue about.
> Rad & I both have had access to those running this program.
> $99 + service call is EXACTLY what it will cost for SWiM + DECA + any receivers swapped to work with SWiM.
> *The training for CSRs is what need more work. The program has been defined from the top down. It's the lowest levels that have yet to come up to speed.*


This could very well explain why they are giving out the information that I received. And it could also be wishful thinking on some CSR's part who might be customers as well or just wanting to save end users money such as myself that could set this up myself and save $50.


----------



## veryoldschool

Movieman said:


> This could very well explain why they are giving out the information that I received. And it could also be wishful thinking on some CSR's part who might be customers as well or just wanting to save end users money such as myself that could set this up myself and save $50.


"We've" been asking about DIY installs and to date this seems not to be an option.
Saving the $49 service call is about all anyone has so far been able to leverage, but this depends on the customer status, so not everyone can/will get this waived.


----------



## MountainMan10

For me the $99 included DECA and SWM.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> Harsh don't even try to comment on things you don't have a clue about.


Testing a DIRECTV product includes being completely and accurately informed of the eventual marketing plans as well?


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> Testing a DIRECTV product includes being completely and accurately informed of the eventual marketing plans as well?


Two of us posted accurate marketing plans currently straight from marketing, yet you seemed to have to mislead the other poster with your completely uninformed posting.
Any marketing plan may evolve, but having known about this particular plan for the last six month, it's been fairly consistent and staying "on plan" so far.

And "you know" what????
Oh yeah, nonsense, which doesn't help anyone here.


----------



## Bigg

veryoldschool said:


> "Generally" you're correct.
> DirecTV's HD streams are higher than your "<10 Mb/s", and with trickplay, I've seen over 35 Mb/s.
> MoCA/DECA version 1 is listed at 175 Mb/s. Real world may not be that high, and I'm not here to fight that battle.
> The current record, I think, is 11 streams going on at the same time through DECA.


Real world on MoCA is 70, I doubt the frequency shift would change anything. The streams themselves are <10mbit, not surprised that they can spike way up though momentarily.


----------



## veryoldschool

Bigg said:


> Real world on MoCA is 70, I doubt the frequency shift would change anything. The streams themselves are <10mbit, not surprised that they can spike way up though momentarily.


these are the same streams you can monitor with DirecTV2PC and while 9 Mb/s is fairly common, the rates normally swing from as little as 2 Mb/s to 14-16 Mb/s in normal play, and as I've said eleven streams have been concurrently running through DECA networking without any problems.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Testing a DIRECTV product includes being completely and accurately informed of the eventual marketing plans as well?


Then perhaps we should all just add 'Subject to change' to the end of every comment that we make. 

The information that RAD and VOS have posted is at least 99.9% accurate .. the only reason it wouldn't be is because of a last second change. Most people really won't harp on that 0.1% chance, but as they say .. yeah, there's always a chance.


----------



## dsw2112

harsh said:


> Testing a DIRECTV product includes being completely and accurately informed of the eventual marketing plans as well?


In general I choose to ignore your posts, but I will respond to clue you in on a little something. While there are people on this forum with direct ties to D* in the form of a cooperative relationship, friendly association, or direct employment; there are many more than participate in a sort of D* focus group (with D* marketing.) It's something you might be invited to join (if you were a D* customer.) There is a level of feedback provided that is usually above and beyond what the general public is aware of, and if you'd stop asking silly question (like above) you just might learn a little something of use from those that actually "know"...


----------



## ffemtreed

A lot of people are missing the point here I think. 

Boxes shouldn't need IP addresses at all if they are all hooked to the same DECA cloud. The only time IP addresses are needed is when local lan traffic needs routed somewhere. 

So theoretically DECA should have its own layer 2 protocol (MAC and LLC) to talk to other boxes on its own local network.


And also 

a home network switch that was purchased in the last 7 years is going to be a full duplex switch which mean 100mbs of bandwidth in each direction for a total of 200mbs of dedicated bandwitdh to each device on the switch. Add another zero onto that for gigabit switches even though DTV boxes will still only operate at 100mbs because of the NIC card they chose to put into the box.


----------



## Steve

ffemtreed said:


> Boxes shouldn't need IP addresses at all if they are all hooked to the same DECA cloud. The only time IP addresses are needed is when local lan traffic needs routed somewhere.


But DECA is a flavor of MoCA, which is inherently IP over coax.

Even when not connected to a DHCP server, the H/HR's know how to create their own unique IP addressing scheme.


----------



## bobnielsen

Also, an IP address will still be needed for other network features, such as On Demand, Media Share and Directv2PC.


----------



## dminches

RAD said:


> Incorrect, that $99 includes either a SWiMLNB, SWiM8 or SWiM16 along with all DECA's needed, plus a $49 installation charge.


It seems like it is worth the $150 to have someone convert my current WB616 set up to a SWiM16 setup alone. Add to that the DECA and it seems like a reasonable cost.

Does having MRV set up come with any commitment?


----------



## Steve

dminches said:


> Does having MRV set up come with any commitment?


From what I've read on here, it won't... unless they include a free upgrade to a new receiver.

Otherwise the appropriate SWiM and number of DECA adapters for your configuration are included in the $150, with no new commitment.


----------



## veryoldschool

Steve said:


> From what I've read on here, it won't... unless they include a free upgrade to a new receiver.
> 
> Otherwise the appropriate SWiM and number of DECA adapters for your configuration are included in the $150, with no new commitment.


To add further, SWiM & DECA don't have a commitment, "but" if a receiver is swapped to be compatible with SWiM or an H20 for networking, then these are what will add a commitment, like adding any receiver will.


----------



## Avder

Question about deca, am I right in assuming that all receivers connected through DECA are all in the same collision domain? Or does the SWM module act like a switch and each individual cable run is its own collision domain?


----------



## harsh

Avder said:


> Question about deca, am I right in assuming that all receivers connected through DECA are all in the same collision domain? Or does the SWM module act like a switch and each individual cable run is its own collision domain?


All devices must vie for the same bandwidth. The branches of the network are made with high bandwidth splitters. In MoCA and DECA, one node takes command and controls all of the cloud traffic. Some of the bandwidth is devoted to video traffic and the rest is left for handing UDP and "data" traffic.

MoCA and DECA may have different traffic optimizations (MoCA can't ignore data traffic as that is currently its primary use), but the principle is the same.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Avder said:


> Question about DECA, am I right in assuming that all receivers connected through DECA are all in the same collision domain? Or does the SWM module act like a switch and each individual cable run is its own collision domain?


As described in the First Look document...think of DECA as its own "sub-network"...focussed on keeping a pathway for media and audio streaming, and "cleaner" with significantly reduced potential for data collision (as opposed to some of the _potential_ data conflict within regular network traffic).

Since its designed to provided a special bandwidth for such streaming, MRV is optimized.


----------



## usnret

Would the number of receivers on a DECA system slow it down (i.e. 2 receivers = fast, 6 receivers = slower)??


----------



## Movieman

usnret said:


> Would the number of receivers on a DECA system slow it down (i.e. 2 receivers = fast, 6 receivers = slower)??


No one has reported that the amount of receivers causes any issues thus far.


----------



## Doug Brott

Avder said:


> Question about deca, am I right in assuming that all receivers connected through DECA are all in the same collision domain? Or does the SWM module act like a switch and each individual cable run is its own collision domain?


DECA/MoCA works differently than Ethernet, so there is no collision domain .. I think this is partly whey we've just been calling it a cloud. It also allows for priority packets which make trick play more responsive.

There is a limit of 16 network devices in a DECA cloud. This device count includes the broadband DECA if needed.


----------



## Doug Brott

ffemtreed said:


> A lot of people are missing the point here I think.
> 
> Boxes shouldn't need IP addresses at all if they are all hooked to the same DECA cloud. The only time IP addresses are needed is when local lan traffic needs routed somewhere.
> 
> So theoretically DECA should have its own layer 2 protocol (MAC and LLC) to talk to other boxes on its own local network.


Yes and No .. @ The DECA level, this is probably a true statement as the cloud functions similarly to a switch .. The cloud is just wires, though whereas the switch is some sort of chip or board. Also, the protocol for delivery is different.

However, at the box level it is IP. The DECA module or built-in DECA make the conversion from Layer 3 to Layer 2. Otherwise, functions within the box would have to understand MAC addresses.


----------



## Avder

harsh said:


> All devices must vie for the same bandwidth. The branches of the network are made with high bandwidth splitters. In MoCA and DECA, one node takes command and controls all of the cloud traffic. Some of the bandwidth is devoted to video traffic and the rest is left for handing UDP and "data" traffic.
> 
> MoCA and DECA may have different traffic optimizations (MoCA can't ignore data traffic as that is currently its primary use), but the principle is the same.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> As described in the First Look document...think of DECA as its own "sub-network"...focussed on keeping a pathway for media and audio streaming, and "cleaner" with significantly reduced potential for data collision (as opposed to some of the _potential_ data conflict within regular network traffic).
> 
> Since its designed to provided a special bandwidth for such streaming, MRV is optimized.





Doug Brott said:


> DECA/MoCA works differently than Ethernet, so there is no collision domain .. I think this is partly whey we've just been calling it a cloud. It also allows for priority packets which make trick play more responsive.
> 
> There is a limit of 16 network devices in a DECA cloud. This device count includes the broadband DECA if needed.


So its somewhat like a token ring setup with one main box having total control of who has the token and that same box guiding layer-two frame prioritization and general traffic management.

Hmm.


----------



## veryoldschool

Avder said:


> So its somewhat like a token ring setup with one main box having total control of who has the token and that same box guiding layer-two frame prioritization and general traffic management.
> 
> Hmm.


I would disregard Harsh, since he doesn't have DirecTV or know that much about DECA.
I have DECA and not sure "one DECA" is in command of the cloud. Each time a DECA comes on line, there is some activity as they negotiate "who's who" on the cloud.


----------



## wavemaster

Kind of funny that D* is starting to tout the "Connected Home" when in reality their approach is to dis-connect from everything else.

We have what I would call a connected home in a practical sense (we still flush the toilets manually - lol). 

The 6 DVR's connect to their own Gb switch, there is also a connection to one Gb port on the NAS and one Gb port to the 24 port main switch. We can touch most of our media from most places. The Home Automation, DVR's, PC's, Internet, Media Centers, Game Consoles, BR players etc. all run inside the Ethernet "Home Network". 

If you are reading this D*, please don't ever abandon support for the actual "connected home" We sure don't need a bunch of splintered networks running on their own subnets. The aproach might make it easy for you, but for those of us that are actually trying to get to a "connected home" it is a PITA.


----------



## JRThiele

Thanks for all the participation in this thread. I didn't realize I was asking such a pertinent question in the first place. I've learned a lot thanks to all your contributions.

So I've done a little experimenting with my hardwired MRV solution with lagging MRV and reached a few conclusions:

1. My lag during trickplay across MRV is more than others are reporting.
2. The lag is the same when directly connected verses going through my Westell DSL router box.
3. I've had my Blu Ray players plugged into the second HR23 Ethernet port and this is slowing things down.

So, I guess I can add a cheap Ethernet switch at each DVR which will allow me to add the television and Blu Ray connections ( 3 total - DVR, TV, BD). This would require two switches in total - one in the living room and one in the bedroom. I assume these devices are powered and would include another brick to be plugged in somewhere too? 

Now, if I go the DECA route, do I still have the same problem with bringing both the TV and Blu Ray player into the network? In other words, will I still need to buy my own switches to include the TV and BD over the Deca connection somehow? Or, am I limited to only one extra connection via the second HR23 port?


----------



## veryoldschool

JRThiele said:


> Now, if I go the DECA route, do I still have the same problem with bringing both the TV and Blu Ray player into the network? In other words, will I still need to buy my own switches to include the TV and BD over the Deca connection somehow? Or, am I limited to only one extra connection via the second HR23 port?


You would need to use/add the switch coming off the DECA at each location, to connect more than the receiver.
Please stay away from using the second port on the DVR. It will only cause problems.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> I would disregard Harsh, since he doesn't have DirecTV or know that much about DECA.


MoCA underpinning details are available aplenty on the Internet. MoCA's website offers several white papers that are very instructional and you don't need to be a DIRECTV subscriber to access, read or gain insight from them.

There's even some mention of how the MoCA 1.1 standard brings DBS support by offering frequencies from 500MHz to 1.5GHz. It is enough to make one wonder if there's any difference between MoCA 1.1 and DECA.

http://mocalliance.org/news/pr_100420_MoCA_adds_Mid_RF_Frequencies_to_MoCA_1.1.php


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> MoCA underpinning details are available aplenty on the Internet. MoCA's website offers several white papers that are very instructional and you don't need to be a DIRECTV subscriber to access, read or gain insight from them.
> 
> There's even some mention of how the MoCA 1.1 standard brings DBS support by offering frequencies from 500MHz to 1.5GHz. It is enough to make one wonder if there's any difference between MoCA 1.1 and DECA.
> 
> http://mocalliance.org/news/pr_100420_MoCA_adds_Mid_RF_Frequencies_to_MoCA_1.1.php


Show me a white paper on DECA and it might be worth reading. 
Short of that you're just guessing/assuming as you do with all of the DirecTV side of this forum.

This does bring up the question: 
Why do you spend so much time here without the service?
There is a dish side here.
Are we just "the cool kids" here and you want to play? :nono:


----------



## lugnutathome

I'm just handing out free advice (which is worth what you paid for it):grin: "Cheap Ethernet Switches" may be more of a headache than some not quite so cheap ones. I have had incredibly high failure rates with Linksys equipment, great experiences with mid range Netgear. YMMV.

Yes these switches need power. And they would still be advisable even if you went the DECA route.

From what I've been able to deduce...

DECA gives you a special "hardwired seperate" network primarily for the DTV IP packet transfer environment that will also allow you to use it to connect the various DVRs in it's cloud for VOD internet access. This all interfaces from the cloud to your existing home network via a single port at the cloud's "base" (or it's head end) via a single port at a switch or router on your home network.

One purpose of DECA is to provide a single end to end network for the DTV IP packet traffic isolated from all the other IP traffic on your regular home network. It uses its own "network cabling" (your DTV coax line already in place for Sat reception) and is completely supportable by Direct TV right up to the point where in interacts with your home network.

For other network devices, PC, PS3, XBox, BlueRay player, network AV receiver, Sling Box, etc you will still need your own separate infrastructure to support them and DTV does not (nor can they) support the possible wired/wireless conglomerations consumers manage to implement

Don "hope I didn't butcher the concepts here" Bolton



JRThiele said:


> Thanks for all the participation in this thread. I didn't realize I was asking such a pertinent question in the first place. I've learned a lot thanks to all your contributions.
> 
> So I've done a little experimenting with my hardwired MRV solution with lagging MRV and reached a few conclusions:
> 
> 1. My lag during trickplay across MRV is more than others are reporting.
> 2. The lag is the same when directly connected verses going through my Westell DSL router box.
> 3. I've had my Blu Ray players plugged into the second HR23 Ethernet port and this is slowing things down.
> 
> So, I guess I can add a cheap Ethernet switch at each DVR which will allow me to add the television and Blu Ray connections ( 3 total - DVR, TV, BD). This would require two switches in total - one in the living room and one in the bedroom. I assume these devices are powered and would include another brick to be plugged in somewhere too?
> 
> Now, if I go the DECA route, do I still have the same problem with bringing both the TV and Blu Ray player into the network? In other words, will I still need to buy my own switches to include the TV and BD over the Deca connection somehow? Or, am I limited to only one extra connection via the second HR23 port?


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> Show me a white paper on DECA and it might be worth reading.


It seems likely that DECA is functionally identical to MoCA 1.1 outside of where it derives its power from.

Do you know one way or the other?


----------



## dennisj00

Think of DECA as simply a switch or more likely a 'hub' that uses coax that's already in place for the ethernet transport and has one location that is tied to your existing network.

While the advantages are possibly exaggerated over a well done cat5 network, the simple advantage is that it can be installed and maintained by the D*tv installers. That's it.

They can disconnect from your network and show you that MRV will work fine. The other network functions, mediashare, VOD are still your responsibility.

It would be impossible for DirecTV to attempt to support MRV over the home-grown networks and literally millions of combinations of routers, switches, cabling, wireless adapters, powerline adapters that we've already seen can be marginal for MRV.

Deca is the answer for networking required for MRV. That is not to say that your network will not work. Any better or any worse.


----------



## veryoldschool

dennisj00 said:


> Think of DECA as simply a switch or more likely a 'hub' that uses coax that's already in place for the ethernet transport and has one location that is tied to your existing network.
> 
> While the advantages are possibly exaggerated over a well done cat5 network, the simple advantage is that it can be installed and maintained by the D*tv installers. That's it.
> 
> They can disconnect from your network and show you that MRV will work fine. The other network functions, mediashare, VOD are still your responsibility.
> 
> It would be impossible for DirecTV to attempt to support MRV over the home-grown networks and literally millions of combinations of routers, switches, cabling, wireless adapters, powerline adapters that we've already seen can be marginal for MRV.
> 
> Deca is the answer for networking required for MRV. That is not to say that your network will not work. Any better or any worse.


"Close".
I would say the whole cloud is more like one big switch, since the output of each DECA isn't the same as the ports on a Hub and are more like a switch.

I can just see DirecTV saying "We'll charge you for MRV, but use your own network at your own risk". :lol:
Can you? Yes.
Do they want you to? I doubt it.


----------



## dennisj00

veryoldschool said:


> "Close".
> I would say the whole cloud is more like one big switch, since the output of each DECA isn't the same as the ports on a Hub and are more like a switch.
> 
> I can just see DirecTV saying "We'll charge you for MRV, but use your own network at your own risk". :lol:
> Can you? Yes.
> Do they want you to? I doubt it.


I hope they do -- and that's been reported as the plan. I have no reason to rip out my multi-switch and network to substitute SWM and DECA. (or let an installer do it.)

My MRV works perfectly - as do all of my HR2xes - along with all other network functions.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> I would say the whole cloud is more like one big switch, since the output of each DECA isn't the same as the ports on a Hub and are more like a switch.


In a switch scenario there can be simultaneous uncontended bi-directional traffic between pairs of nodes. DECA's single "pipe" must carry all conversations and do so unidirectionally. While DECA has technology to _avoid_ collisions, it is otherwise a very hub-like technology.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> In a switch scenario there can be simultaneous uncontended bi-directional traffic between pairs of nodes. DECA's single "pipe" must carry all conversations and do so unidirectionally. While DECA has technology to _avoid_ collisions, it is otherwise a very hub-like technology.


DECA's "single pipe" is a spread spectrum modulated RF signal, which can't really be compared to twisted pairs directly, at the level you're trying to I don't think.
The cloud is "Hub-like", since all DECAs receive the same signal, while the DECA outputs are "filtered", so they're more like a switch, and only output what the device connected wants/needs.

Maybe it's just where this is viewed from:
Inside the cloud is a hub function.
Inside a switch isn't.
Outside of the cloud is like a switch, not hub like.


----------



## wavemaster

It would be nice if the term "cloud" wasn't used. It isn't applicable here. There is no distributed load, data store, redundancy etc. It is nothing more than a LAN over D*'s wiring.


----------



## veryoldschool

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe it's just where this is viewed from:
> Inside the cloud is a hub function.
> Inside a switch isn't.
> Outside of the cloud is like a switch, not hub like.


I just received a message reaffirming this and a "whole bunch" more about DECA verses IP traffic over ethernet.

The short breakdown in "blonde speak":

With two devices on the network, there is little difference between any of these, DECA, switched, or Hub.
The more devices on the network, the more each "fights to talk/listen". Switches are better than hubs here.

DECA is the "FedEx" of networking video streams, since it prioritizes the package/commands and will "bump" high priority commands above lower packages.
Ethernet doesn't/can't do this. Everything is sent via ground service by simply being loaded on the truck when the truck is there and routed to its destination.[/blonde speak]

While this may be a crude attempt to explain, I hope some will understand.

I'll leave the networking gurus to fight between themselves.


----------



## harsh

wavemaster said:


> It would be nice if the term "cloud" wasn't used. It isn't applicable here. There is no distributed load, data store, redundancy etc. It is nothing more than a LAN over D*'s wiring.


It probably isn't appropriate to introduce the concepts of Frame Relay into this discussion. Cloud in the sense of a network segment where everybody gets rained on fits pretty well.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> Cloud in the sense of a network segment where everybody gets rained on fits pretty well.


Cloud in the sense of an electron cloud, where you don't really know where it is at any one time. There is such a multitude of RF signal paths, that it's hard to know which one is being used and by tapping in to monitor them, you've changed them.


----------



## wavemaster

harsh said:


> It probably isn't appropriate to introduce the concepts of Frame Relay into this discussion. Cloud in the sense of a network segment where everybody gets rained on fits pretty well.


Look up the practice - THIS has nothing to do with cloud/cloud applications/cloud computing. It is a LAN over coax. Nothing more.

Saying cloud or using the term cloud just confuses the subject.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> Ethernet doesn't/can't do this. Everything is sent via ground service by simply being loaded on the truck when the truck is there and routed to its destination.[/blonde speak]


In my network, DECA is ground service for only a few users.

Ethernet is Express Overnight for everyone.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> In my network, DECA is ground service for only a few users.
> 
> Ethernet is Express Overnight for everyone.


DECA has a mechanism to prioritize packets, bypassing FIFO queues (windows and app buffers)

Ethernet doesn't (at least not without application/specific hardware).

Thats all he's saying. Utilizing the current analogy:

I need 3 day delivery all the time, and I have critical items I need in 8 hours sometimes (trickplay commands):
DECA is 2 day delivery with option of 4 hour delivery.
Ethernet is 1 day delivery.

So Ethernet affords me no advantage over DECA because, although its faster in general, both meet my minimum need.
DECA affords me an advantage because it has a priority delivery when I need it. Ethernet simply has the "always faster" option that isn't fast enough for my priority.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> In my network, DECA is ground service for only a few users.
> 
> Ethernet is Express Overnight for everyone.


While I understand your network is fast, does it change priority "on demand"?
This was the point I was trying to make. DECA does. Everything can be moving along fine and then "This has to get there right now" overrides everything else.
I think yours is simply so fast/free of load that, for you, it doesn't matter.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Look up the practice - THIS has nothing to do with cloud/cloud applications/cloud computing. It is a LAN over coax. Nothing more.
> 
> Saying cloud or using the term cloud just confuses the subject.


In MoCA/DECA speak, cloud refers to the network created by joining 2 or more clients to the physically connected MoCA/DECA rhealm. It is 100% correct, and logical, to call a DECA network a cloud.

You are confusing it with another use of cloud in computer speak.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> The more devices on the network, the more each "fights to talk/listen". Switches are better than hubs here.


In the context of MRV, switches are nothing like hubs. Switches offer bidirectional communications between two nodes that only risk collision when other nodes try to "horn in" on existing sessions or there is a broadcast packet. Most of the time, the traffic flows up to the rated capacity in both directions entirely without concern for (nor awareness of) what is going on in the rest of the network.

In contrast, hubs send everything from each node to every other node in relay fashion kind of like a distribution amplifier. If there is a collision, both packets are lost and each must be retransmitted after a random delay interval.

DECA's closest analog is probably along the lines of an administered Token Ring setup where the token is handed out by the Network Controller as opposed to being passed on to the next node. While a node has been given the nod by the NC, it broadcasts its packet and waits for another nod.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> In the context of MRV, switches are nothing like hubs.


 Yes they are [in the context used by me] since they'll sending the MRV stream.
Don't "cherry pick" my posts to further your nonsense please.
If you follow what I posted and you'll see where I distinguished between the two and further how DECA is different.


----------



## LameLefty

Here's a suggestion for Harsh -

Why don't you install a DECA-based network for your own DVRs and do some real-world comparisons so you can post with some first-hand experience, like those of the rest of us who've actually used it for awhile? It's hitting the mainstream in a couple of weeks so you won't have any excuses.


----------



## BudShark

There's a lot of fact and theory. The facts are:

- half-duplex networks bad
- switched networks good, but no priority for command/control packets
- DECA networks good, but no priority for command/control packets

Both Ethernet and DECA have the bandwidth and ability to support streaming. As long as you avoid half-duplex, collision prone networks you are fine from a data transmission standpoint.

DECA provides an advantage only because I have a mechanism for priority. And that priority is more of an advantage NOT because its faster on the wire (which it isn't and can't be), not because I knock something off the wire (which I don't), but solely because I can bypass the FIFO queues on both sides of the equation - affording me a more "local" trickplay experience.

There's nothing you can do with an Ethernet network that overcomes that entirely. I can speed things up, I can go enterprise class, I can do all that. I can eliminate all my ethernet bottlenecks. But my trickplay packet will still be queued up in the network stack window and buffers behind video packets... and in this case DECA, in its cloud based, shared bandwidth, scheduled data delivery - will be faster, everytime.

There's lots of reasons why DECA makes sense for DirecTV to make it the preferred option.
There's also reasons why DECA is preferred even if you have a great Ethernet network.
Some people just don't want to hear that, and for them, there is the option of self-supporting it on Ethernet and being happy with what they have. Just, please, stop mischaracterizing it unless you understand it (or at least have used it, unlike some little basset hounds I know..  )


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> While I understand your network is fast, does it change priority "on demand"?


The aspect that seems to be eluding you is that switched Ethernet doesn't need to be prioritized because the MRV traffic is routed exclusively between the client and server involved in the MRV session. Similar traffic between other nodes is of absolutely no concern as those conversations are traveling on their own TX and RX current loops connected by the switch relay "fabric". Broadcast traffic comes through occasionally (as it does with DECA), but the packets are few and the sizes are relatively small.

If "lag" is an issue and connecting the "client" and "server" via a direct cable doesn't fix it, the problem isn't with the communications medium. The reports that I've seen from those who tried a direct CAT5 connection was that the lag was not appreciably improved.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> In MoCA/DECA speak, cloud refers to the network created by joining 2 or more clients to the physically connected MoCA/DECA rhealm. It is 100% correct, and logical, to call a DECA network a cloud.
> 
> You are confusing it with another use of cloud in computer speak.


Well you have the whole shop laughing today (a shop full of network engineers). So you will confuse some and totally entertain others. Whatever blows your hair back.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> The aspect that seems to be eluding you is that switched Ethernet doesn't need to be prioritized because the MRV traffic is routed exclusively between the client and server involved in the MRV session. Similar traffic between other nodes is of absolutely no concern as those conversations are traveling on their own TX and RX current loops connected by the switch relay "fabric". Broadcast traffic comes through occasionally (as it does with DECA), but the packets are few and the sizes are relatively small.
> 
> If "lag" is an issue and connecting the "client" and "server" via a direct cable doesn't fix it, the problem isn't with the communications medium. The reports that I've seen from those who tried a direct CAT5 connection was that the lag was not appreciably improved.


You haven forgotten about your buffers and queues that exist along the way, primarily in the network stack.

Its just like driving a car. The slowest part of the trip isn't the highway... its the off ramps and the traffic control at the end of the ramp. Now imagine you had the ability to bypass everyone sitting behind the red light and go to the front of the off-ramp.

Thats the difference. Not this other stuff you keep dragging in. People want to mischaracterize the data flows and rates and mechanisms. There are lots of variables, but the fact remains, a correctly setup DECA and Ethernet both have the ability to move MRV data without lag or bandwidth being an issue.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> The aspect that seems to be eluding you is that switched Ethernet doesn't need to be prioritized because the MRV traffic is routed exclusively between the client and server involved in the MRV session. Similar traffic between other nodes is of absolutely no concern as those conversations are traveling on their own TX and RX current loops connected by the switch relay "fabric". Broadcast traffic comes through occasionally (as it does with DECA), but the packets are few and the sizes are relatively small.
> 
> If "lag" is an issue and connecting the "client" and "server" via a direct cable doesn't fix it, the problem isn't with the communications medium. The reports that I've seen from those who tried a direct CAT5 connection was that the lag was not appreciably improved.


Congratulations. You've missed the entire point. Again. :lol:


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> There's a lot of fact and theory. The facts are:
> 
> - half-duplex networks bad
> - switched networks good, but no priority for command/control packets
> - DECA networks good, but no priority for command/control packets
> 
> Both Ethernet and DECA have the bandwidth and ability to support streaming. As long as you avoid half-duplex, collision prone networks you are fine from a data transmission standpoint.
> 
> DECA provides an advantage only because I have a mechanism for priority. And that priority is more of an advantage NOT because its faster on the wire (which it isn't and can't be), not because I knock something off the wire (which I don't), but solely because I can bypass the FIFO queues on both sides of the equation - affording me a more "local" trickplay experience.
> 
> There's nothing you can do with an Ethernet network that overcomes that entirely. I can speed things up, I can go enterprise class, I can do all that. I can eliminate all my ethernet bottlenecks. But my trickplay packet will still be queued up in the network stack window and buffers behind video packets... and in this case DECA, in its cloud based, shared bandwidth, scheduled data delivery - will be faster, everytime.
> 
> There's lots of reasons why DECA makes sense for DirecTV to make it the preferred option.
> There's also reasons why DECA is preferred even if you have a great Ethernet network.
> Some people just don't want to hear that, and for them, there is the option of self-supporting it on Ethernet and being happy with what they have. Just, please, stop mischaracterizing it unless you understand it (or at least have used it, unlike some little basset hounds I know..  )


This is funny stuff here today.

If you have 10,000 cars a day on your dirt road, you will need to prioritize traffic with a traffic cop. Or limit the traffic to 10 cars. This is what you have with DECA and if it works for you great!

If you have a 6 lane freeway with 10,000 cars a day on it, A. everyone is screaming along, and B. you can handle a lot more cars.

Oh, and not JUST ONE BRAND OF CAR (like DECA with D*'s STB) but all makes and models.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Well you have the whole shop laughing today (a shop full of network engineers). So you will confuse some and totally entertain others. Whatever blows your hair back.


Cloud: A network cloud exists because when data is transmitted across a packet-switched network in a packet, no two packets will necessarily follow the same physical path. The unpredictable area that the data enters before it is received is the cloud.

In an RF based network with splitters, no signal travels the same path. Hence, MoCA physical networks are referred to clouds, because the path is unpredictable. But I'm glad I was able to give you guys a laugh.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> The aspect that seems to be eluding you is that switched Ethernet doesn't need to be prioritized because the MRV traffic is routed exclusively between the client and server involved in the MRV session.


 So I know you don't have this setup to know much of anything about it, but I'd say BudShark keeps pointing out, what is "eluding" you.


----------



## LameLefty

wavemaster said:


> This is funny stuff here today.
> 
> If you have 10,000 cars a day on your dirt road, you will need to prioritize traffic with a traffic cop. Or limit the traffic to 10 cars. This is what you have with DECA and if it works for you great!
> 
> If you have a 6 lane freeway with 10,000 cars a day on it, A. everyone is screaming along, and B. you can handle a lot more cars.
> 
> Oh, and not JUST ONE BRAND OF CAR (like DECA with D*'s STB) but all makes and models.


Your analogy fails when your 6 lane highway hits the off-ramp and there's no way to jump the line for the ambulance stuck in back.


----------



## veryoldschool

LameLefty said:


> Your analogy fails when your 6 lane highway hits the off-ramp and there's no way to jump the line for the ambulance stuck in back.


It's simply amazing how many simply don't see/get this.
If their "freeway" still has an open lane/wide shoulder, it isn't a problem.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> This is funny stuff here today.
> 
> If you have 10,000 cars a day on your dirt road, you will need to prioritize traffic with a traffic cop. Or limit the traffic to 10 cars. This is what you have with DECA and if it works for you great!
> 
> If you have a 6 lane freeway with 10,000 cars a day on it, A. everyone is screaming along, and B. you can handle a lot more cars.
> 
> Oh, and not JUST ONE BRAND OF CAR (like DECA with D*'s STB) but all makes and models.


Unfortunately, this is a common mischaracterization.

Networks don't have lanes, they only have 1 lane, always (unless you bring in aggregates, but we aren't doing that in Ethernet or DECA).

So the only difference between a 10Mb, 100Mb, and 1Gb is speed - or latency. How fast my digital signal gets from point a to point b. The faster it goes, the more signal I can put on the line, the more data I send, the faster it is. But still, only 1 lane.

The problem with speed, is I don't need it. Lets say I have an app that can handle 1Mb of data/sec and display it. Which is a better network? 10Mb, 100Mb, or 1Gb? Doesn't matter does it?

So, in the case of both DECA and Ethernet, I have sufficient bandwidth. So speed, is irrelevant.

I am on feet, not miles, so latency, or as an exponential value of speed*distance, is irrelevant because I don't have enough distance.

So what is the difference?

Prioritization. The ability to bypass the queue (window) on both the server side, in order to request a new set point in the stream (FF 30 seconds) and the client, to tell it to stop processing packets until it gets to the new setpoint.

But... regardless, your analogy is very wrong and is focused on the wrong part of the traffic equation.


----------



## wavemaster

LameLefty said:


> Your analogy fails when your 6 lane highway hits the off-ramp and there's no way to jump the line for the ambulance stuck in back.


LOL - Well it has never happened that I am aware of. I suppose someday if we saturate the switches with dozens of users/appliances (which you could never get to dozens of anything with DECA) it could happen.

My whole issue here is we are actually trying to bring all the technology in our home together, not break it apart.

It will make it easier for D* I understand that. And I understand the differences between the two technologies. When IPV6 has greater support the whole "well DECA can prioritize" will be gone out the door and those of us with modern Ethernet networks will already be done.


----------



## Doug Brott

Before distributed computing came along and defined itself as "cloud" .. People drew diagrams and created a fluffy area for sections of a network. This fluffy area is also called a "cloud."

Most of us don't confuse the two.


----------



## LameLefty

wavemaster said:


> LOL - Well it has never happened that I am aware of. I suppose someday if we saturate the switches with dozens of users/appliances (which you could never get to dozens of anything with DECA) it could happen.


It already happens. Trickplay on DECA-connected devices is smoother and faster-responding for a reason (and you don't need dozens of devices on your network to notice the difference).



> My whole issue here is we are actually trying to bring all the technology in our home together, not break it apart.


Go right ahead! Hook up your fridge and your toaster for all I care.  DECA simply moves a chunk of high-bandwidth, time-sensitive data to its own virtual place; however all you have to do is plug one box back into your router and you're just as interconnected as you were before, for stuff that benefits (Media Share, On Demand, PPV reporting, etc.).



> It will make it easier for D* I understand that. And I understand the differences between the two technologies. When IPV6 has greater support the whole "well DECA can prioritize" will be gone out the door and those of us with modern Ethernet networks will already be done.


You will be even further in the minority than you are now, but that's okay. In the meantime, millions of consumers who not only don't know about networking gobbledygook, but don't CARE about it, get the benefits of an easy-to-deploy topology that leverages the wires they already have running around their houses, and one which provides demonstrably superior performance in certain areas like trick play.


----------



## wavemaster

LameLefty said:


> You will be even further in the minority than you are now, but that's okay. In the meantime, millions of consumers who not only don't know about networking gobbledygook, but don't CARE about it, get the benefits of an easy-to-deploy topology that leverages the wires they already have running around their houses, and one which provides demonstrably superior performance in certain areas like trick play.


You think users running Ethernet in their home are in the minority? This place kills me. Now I'm arguing with one of my Kids. How many DECA users are there in the MRV beta group? How many Ethernet? There is currently more homes in the US with Ethernet in them then the ENTIRE D* customer base.

BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


----------



## Phil T

Another benefit of the new DECA system (installed Sunday) is I eliminated two wireless routers that were giving me fits and disconnects on my network. So far the DECA has been flawless. I now have only one receiver hardwired to my router and its shares internet with the other two.


----------



## dsw2112

wavemaster said:


> My whole issue here is we are actually trying to bring all the technology in our home together, not break it apart.


Personally I don't know that it matters either way. Like you, I don't plan on utilizing DECA for networking D* boxes, but I fail to see your larger argument that this is splintering the connected home.

DECA is a product for proprietary D* use, and receivers still ship with ethernet ports. It seems that there is still the choice of the two. If you happen to believe that one is better than the other, then choose that option.

In the end I suppose the same "splintering" argument could be made regarding Wifi or WAP's. After all, they are also ethernet in and RF out. I'm not sure if you feel the same way regarding these products, but at the end of the day many are happy to use them to connect to their LAN's (much like many will be happy with DECA to do the same.) I don't see how any of these products causes a connected home to "break apart"...


----------



## Steve

wavemaster said:


> [...] BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


And my 81 year old mom is a FiOS "quadruple-play" customer who's all MoCA. Things change.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> You think users running Ethernet in their home are in the minority? This place kills me. Now I'm arguing with one of my Kids. How many DECA users are there in the MRV beta group? How many Ethernet? There is currently more homes in the US with Ethernet in them then the ENTIRE D* customer base.
> 
> BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


It doesn't have to be so dang confrontational does it?

The majority of homes in the United States are not wired for Ethernet (cat5/6) to their televisions. That is a fact. Go ahead and argue with us kids.


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> You think users running Ethernet in their home are in the minority? This place kills me. Now I'm arguing with one of my Kids. How many DECA users are there in the MRV beta group? How many Ethernet? There is currently more homes in the US with Ethernet in them then the ENTIRE D* customer base.
> 
> BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


Yes .. In satellite connected homes .. More have coax than have Ethernet. This is now and will always be true. Thus Ethernet is in the minority.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


Sssshhhh... I don't want everyone to hear this. netBeui is network/transport level protocol. It makes you look really bad if you compare netBeui to Ethernet, netBeui runs on top of Ethernet. Sssshhhh... might want to edit that out before someone sees it and it makes you look a bit silly arguing with people and insulting them, then turning around and making that big of a mistake...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Doug Brott said:


> Yes .. In satellite connected homes .. More have coax than have Ethernet. This is now and will always be true. Thus Ethernet is in the minority.


Doesn't anyone with broadband have Ethernet in their house. It may be a direct connection from the PC to the Modem but it's probably Ethernet.

If that's the case then by your account, less then half of DirecTV's current subs have broadband.

I hate to disagree with you Doug but I'm not buyin' it. Every single person I know with DirecTV has broadband.

The only friend or family member I know that doesn't have broadband is my Mother-in-law. Heck even my 92 year old down the street has 6Mb DSL in his house.

Granted, I've always lived in the north east where broadband is plentiful and fairly inexpensive so I may be in a higher concentration area then others but I still believe that more the 50% of DirecTV subs have Ethernet in some capacity in their homes.

Of course, I've been wrong before. :grin:

Mike


----------



## BudShark

MicroBeta said:


> Doesn't anyone with broadband have Ethernet in their house. It may be a direct connection from the PC to the Modem but it's probably Ethernet.
> 
> If that's the case then by your account, less then half of DirecTV's current subs have broadband.
> 
> I hate to disagree with you Doug but I'm not buyin' it. Every single person I know with DirecTV has broadband.
> 
> The only friend or family member I know that doesn't have broadband is my Mother-in-law. Heck even my 92 year old down the street has 6Mb DSL in his house.
> 
> Granted, I've always lived in the north east where broadband is plentiful and fairly inexpensive so I may be in a higher concentration area then others but I still believe that more the 50% of DirecTV subs have Ethernet in some capacity in their homes.
> 
> Of course, I've been wrong before. :grin:
> 
> Mike


Something tells me this was Wavemasters backwards point.

The argument began with MRV - which is receiver to receiver connectivity. So staying on that level - how many homes do you think have an Ethernet infrastructure that allows them connections between TVs? That answer is pretty obvious - and Doug is right.

If you want to get into the who has any Ethernet based product in their house, that is obviously much higher.

In fact, by that logic, I can say non-HR24/H24 receivers are Ethernet based because they connect to the DECA using Ethernet and thus this whole argument is pointless because DirecTV is using Ethernet for MRV.


----------



## wavemaster

dsw2112 said:


> In the end I suppose the same "splintering" argument could be made regarding Wifi or WAP's. After all, they are also ethernet in and RF out. I'm not sure if you feel the same way regarding these products, but at the end of the day many are happy to use them to connect to their LAN's (much like many will be happy with DECA to do the same.) I don't see how any of these products causes a connected home to "break apart"...


Right now where each are available, it isn't an issue. My suggestion to D* was don't abandon Ethernet just because your installers can't handle it. Keep a port on every box. DECA will come and go long before Ethernet ever does. Even though someone here thinks the millions of users on Ethernet are the minority.


----------



## LameLefty

wavemaster said:


> You think users running Ethernet in their home are in the minority?


Yes.



> This place kills me. Now I'm arguing with one of my Kids.


Unless one of your "Kids" is a 41 year old attorney and former spacecraft design engineer with an undergrad degree in aerospace engineering, I don't think that's accurate. But believe what you like. 



> How many DECA users are there in the MRV beta group? How many Ethernet?


Got no clue. I have two boxes connected via DECA and the rest by ethernet.



> There is currently more homes in the US with Ethernet in them then the ENTIRE D* customer base.


Speaking of "kids," I have to correct their misuses of "then" and "than" all the time. 

That being said, I would have to see statistics to believe that.



> BTW - how is you computer hooked up to the net right now netBEUI? My 78 year old grand mother has Ethernet in her house.


Which computer? The Macs? My wife's little netbook? The three PCs? How 'bout my two XBox 360's, the PS3, the Wii, the two iPod Touches and the two iPhones? And do you mean at home or at work? 

And does your grandmother have MRV? Has she compared it with DECA yet or is she stuck on ethernet-only for now? Because if she hasn't compared the two for herself, making blanket statements is pretty silly.


----------



## dsw2112

wavemaster said:


> Right now where each are available, it isn't an issue. My suggestion to D* was don't abandon Ethernet just because your installers can't handle it. *Keep a port on every box.*...


Keeping an ethernet port on boxes is a point I would agree with, but did not see mentioned in any of your previous comments


----------



## wavemaster

LameLefty said:


> That being said, I would have to see statistics to believe that.


Internet Broadband Subscribers in USA
Subscriber Statistics - June 30, 2009

Providers

Total Subs. at
End of 2Q 2009

New Subs.
during 2Q 2009

Change (%)

Cable Companies

38,005,172

249,471

0.66 %

Telephone Companies

31,897,117

384,488

1.22 %

Total Broadband

69,902,289

633,959

0.92 %

Sources: The Internet Broadband provider companies and Leichtman Research Group, Inc., June 30,2009.

******************************************

Of course the 69,000,000 are broadband users. There is currently over 200,000,000 "internet" users.

My kids are not rocket scientists YET - But they all know 69mil as a much bigger number than 18.

Of all my employees, friends and family I don't know of one without Ethernet in their home.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Right now where each are available, it isn't an issue. My suggestion to D* was don't abandon Ethernet just because your installers can't handle it. Keep a port on every box. DECA will come and go long before Ethernet ever does. Even though someone here thinks the millions of users on Ethernet are the minority.


You really think that D* abandoned Ethernet because their installers couldn't handle it? You feel the need to make a wide ranging insult against people you don't know?

They don't NEED cat5/6 to be run. Period. They have a solution that works just fine. Complain, mischaracterize, insult all you want. DECA works great.

You mention all these MRV beta testers. Well, here's a challenge for you.

1) Find me 1 tester who has DECA who states that DECA is worse than Ethernet.
2) Find me 1 tester who has DECA who states that he has excessive dropouts, poor trickplay performance, and when he went to Ethernet they went away.
3) Fine me 1 tester who has Ethernet who states that he has dropouts, trickplay performance problems, and when he went to DECA they did NOT go away.

You can't. And you won't. For all your posturing, for all your insults, for all your mistakes, you seem to be holding on to one thing only and that is a love of Ethernet. Fine... I'll take a line from Saturday Night Live:

If you love Ethernet so much, why don't you marry it?

No one insulted your beloved Ethernet, we simply pointed out why DECA had some advantages in the implementation DirecTV is using. And along the way, you began insulting me (when you were WRONG and I pointed it out and you ignored it), then insulted Doug, Lefty, VOS, and any one else - all the while you've been wrong. And wrong. And wrong. But you ignore that, and have now moved to insulting installers who you don't even know.

Ethernet is wonderful. It is however, NOT, the second coming. You would do well to listen more, read some, and have a more open mind to that world and the fact that there is NOT only one answer to most questions.

:soapbox:


----------



## LameLefty

wavemaster said:


> My kids are not rocket scientists YET - But they all know 69mil as a much bigger number than 18.
> 
> Of all my employees, friends and family I don't know of one without Ethernet in their home.


Okay, now you're playing games. "Broadband internet subscribers" ≠ "Number of people who have ethernet wired throughout their homes." :nono:

By contrast, I guarantee you that every one of those 18M+ Directv subscribers has RG6 run to the locations of their receivers already.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> snip
> 
> Of all my employees, friends and family I don't know of one without Ethernet in their home.


Blatant mischaracterization of the argument.

The argument WAS ethernet infrastructure to connect DirecTV receivers IN the house for MRV purposes. Not how many homes have a single point of Ethernet connectivity in their home.

Your facts prove nothing other than your ability to manipulate an argument into something that can support your position.


----------



## Beerstalker

Again, that just means they have internet service. It does not mean that they have ethernet cable run to every room in which a D* receiver will be located. If there is no ethernet cable in the room with the D* receiver what good is it? 

Now if there is a room with a D* receiver in it then it could be assumed that there is RG6 cable going into that room that can be used to network the receiver.


----------



## veryoldschool

BudShark said:


> Ethernet is wonderful. It is however, NOT, the second coming. You would do well to listen more, read some, and have a more open mind to that world and the fact that there is NOT only one answer to most questions.


"The second coming" would be RVU wouldn't it?
Oh wait, that's where DECA is heading.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BudShark said:


> Something tells me this was Wavemasters backwards point.
> 
> The argument began with MRV - which is receiver to receiver connectivity. So staying on that level - how many homes do you think have an Ethernet infrastructure that allows them connections between TVs? That answer is pretty obvious - and Doug is right.
> 
> If you want to get into the who has any Ethernet based product in their house, that is obviously much higher.
> 
> In fact, by that logic, I can say non-HR24/H24 receivers are Ethernet based because they connect to the DECA using Ethernet and thus this whole argument is pointless because DirecTV is using Ethernet for MRV.


I did make the distinction that, for the most part anyway, it's most likely that Ethernet in most homes is limited to the connection between the PC and modem.

However, it's not a very large leap to connecting something else to that modem. It's not very far down the line that the number of homes with more than one host connected to that modem will out number those that don't. Granted, I work with a bunch of engineers so take this with a grain of salt, but they all have Ethernet home networks with multiple devices.

Now as to how many DirecTV subs have a home Ethernet network capable of connecting two receivers, well that would be everyone with broadband in their home. I would think this is greater than those who don't have broadband. Ok, I'll concede that in most cases DECA over coax will be much easier to implement then extending the current Ethernet.

I firmly believe that the majority of MRV users in the future will be using DECA. However, there will still need to be a Ethernet network to have On Demand, DirecTV2PC, etc. For the foreseeable future, Ethernet is a necessary component of, and a *revenue stream* for, DirecTV's Connected Home. There's no way around that. It will be required if there is going to be any money made from On Demand.

For MRV we need DECA. For other features we need Ethernet...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> You really think that D* abandoned Ethernet because their installers couldn't handle it? You feel the need to make a wide ranging insult against people you don't know?
> 
> :soapbox:


Insults go both ways.

I don't care a hoot about DECA, and I don't care how many people use it, nor have I told anyone I think they shouldn't use it.

I just want D* to continue providing an Ethernet port. Thats all

And when someone that seems to be really intelligent thinks Ethernet LAN's are a minority to DECA LANS well,..... honestly, how do you PC/sugar coat that?


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Insults go both ways.
> 
> I don't care a hoot about DECA, and I don't care how many people use it, nor have I told anyone I think they shouldn't use it.
> 
> I just want D* to continue providing an Ethernet port. Thats all
> 
> And when someone that seems to be really intelligent thinks Ethernet LAN's are a minority to DECA LANS well,..... honestly, how do you PC/sugar coat that?


Please show me anywhere that anyone said that. No one did. You are confused. The conversation was Ethernet & Cat 5/6 between receivers, vs. RG6 between receivers. Then you turned it into something else on your own.

And show me where anyone insulted you before you started bashing everyone else. I guess maybe us kids with our slicked back hair that give all your coworkers laughs because we are so clueless must really need things explained to us.


----------



## BudShark

MicroBeta said:


> For MRV we need DECA. For other features we need Ethernet...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> Mike


This whole thread is about MRV. Period. No one even tried to get into the conversation of how people are connected to the Internet until wavemaster veered somewhere else.

No one said Ethernet is bad. No one said Ethernet isn't everywhere. All that was said is the majority of DirecTV customers do not have an Ethernet infrastructure that would allow them to connect their receivers. I guess it could've been more specific by stating "without running Cat5/6 to areas where RG6 already is."


----------



## veryoldschool

BudShark said:


> All that was said is the majority of DirecTV customers do not have an Ethernet infrastructure that would allow them to connect their receivers.


And why there have been so many powerline & wireless adapters used, which are becoming "iffy" for MRV.


----------



## RAD

veryoldschool said:


> And why there have been so many powerline & wireless adapters used, which are becoming "iffy" for MRV.


DirecTV has stopped selling the powerline adapters on their web site, they just have wireless now.


----------



## wavemaster

>Budshark

I don't have time for this. 

Looking back at the thread the first insult was pointed at someone else - I mixed it up. If any of you have hurt feelings from anything I said, I am sorry it was not my intent.

The funny thing is that after using MRV for a while the way it is, we probably won't continue to use it until they can figure out the list. In my setup you hit the list, it took 127 page downs to go through the list. LOL - DECA or Ethernet won't make that interface any better.


----------



## ricochet

Interesting thread, but I guess I'm missing the point.

Basically we have receivers that require coax to get signal from the dish. The argument here is that DirecTV better by gosh not take away my ability to redundantly wire them together with Ethernet? If there was an option to stream the incoming signal from the dish to the receivers over Ethernet I could see this being an issue but there isn't. You need the coax no matter what so why care if that wire is also used for MRV? I don't see how the physical media makes a house any more or less "connected".

I could also see being upset if DirecTV requires people to pay for something or even if you had to go through the hassle of having a free install done, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.


----------



## Beerstalker

Most of us don't have an issue with them using DECA. We are just worried that they might force us to use DECA.

I personally wired my home with SWM/RG6 Quad Shield, and gigabit ethernet to every room. I have that working with MRV right now and it works great. I tested MRV with this setup for quite a while before it was sent national and sent D* reports to help them improve it's function. Now D* says that they are going to start charging me $3/month for this feature on top of all the items that I already subscribe to (HD Access, DVR service, programming, etc.). To me the cost of developing MRV should have been covered with those fees already, it does not deserve a new fee. This is the topic of another thread though.

What I will really be upset with is if D* suddenly decides that my curent home network that is working fine is no longer good enough for them, and that I will have to move to DECA to keep using MRV. On top of that they will want to charge me $150 for the upgrade on top of the $3/month that I will already have to pay. Especially when all they will have to do is add DECA adapters at each receiver and at my router (they charge the same $150 for upgrading others with a new dish, wiring them for SWM, and adding DECA adapters).


----------



## veryoldschool

Beerstalker said:


> Now D* says that they are going to start charging me $3/month for this feature on top of all the items that I already subscribe to (HD Access, DVR service, programming, etc.). To me the cost of developing MRV should have been covered with those fees already, it does not deserve a new fee. This is the topic of another thread though.
> 
> What I will really be upset with is if D* suddenly decides that my curent home network that is working fine is no longer good enough for them, and that I will have to move to DECA to keep using MRV. On top of that they will want to charge me $150 for the upgrade on top of the $3/month that I will already have to pay. Especially when all they will have to do is add DECA adapters at each receiver and at my router (they charge the same $150 for upgrading others with a new dish, wiring them for SWM, and adding DECA adapters).


I have been vary vocal to DirecTV through my means over this.
"The truth is" their marketing has done the numbers and can justify adding the fee and still feel they're below the competition at this service level.
Whether I/we agree is no longer the issue. This ship has sailed.
The cost of the DECA upgrade has been setup for a "one price fits all", and everyone's needs will not be the same. Some will simply need more than others, so some may think they're coming out "ahead" and others won't. If you were to compare buying MoCA devices, you'll see that they start around $70 and you'd need 2 for starters.
In everything I've heard/read, there are no plans to force everyone to DECA for MRV. There are [have been] many in DirecTV that wanted/thought this should happen, but Doug has clearly stated this isn't their plan and I've heard this through other means as well.
Does DirecTV want everyone to use DECA?
Sure and why they've set the upgrade price "so cheap", as an incentive.
DirecTV would much rather tell a customer their setup is fully supported along with their service than have to say "use it at your own risk" but we'll still charge you the monthly fee.
This just seems good business practice.


----------



## dsw2112

ricochet said:


> I could also see being upset if DirecTV requires people to pay for something or even if you had to go through the hassle of having a free install done, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.


As Beerstalker said there is a pervasive fear, among existing customers, that D* will go DECA only for MRV. The DECA upgrade fee is touted between $99 - $150 and many simply aren't willing to pay the price. It has been said (repeatedly) that D* will continue to allow ethernet for MRV, but many are still concerned.

I don't "think" most care about the MRV transport mechanism (obviously there are a few exceptions.) In essence, they feel that D* would be charging for a hardware solution redundant to their current ethernet setup... In other words: if the DECA upgrade were offered for free (with the $3 MRV fee) far less would be complaining...


----------



## bigmac94

veryoldschool said:


> I have been vary vocal to DirecTV through my means over this.
> "The truth is" their marketing has done the numbers and can justify adding the fee and still feel they're below the competition at this service level.
> Whether I/we agree is no longer the issue. This ship has sailed.
> The cost of the DECA upgrade has been setup for a "one price fits all", and everyone's needs will not be the same. Some will simply need more than others, so some may think they're coming out "ahead" and others won't. If you were to compare buying MoCA devices, you'll see that they start around $70 and you'd need 2 for starters.
> In everything I've heard/read, there are no plans to force everyone to DECA for MRV. There are [have been] many in DirecTV that wanted/thought this should happen, but Doug has clearly stated this isn't their plan and I've heard this through other means as well.
> Does DirecTV want everyone to use DECA?
> Sure and why they've set the upgrade price "so cheap", as an incentive.
> DirecTV would much rather tell a customer their setup is fully supported along with their service than have to say "use it at your own risk" but we'll still charge you the monthly fee.
> This just seems good business practice.


Hey VOS...
Question on something you said... "The cost of the DECA upgrade has been setup for a "one price fits all", and everyone's needs will not be the same. Some will simply need more than others, so some may think they're coming out "ahead" and others won't. If you were to compare buying MoCA devices, you'll see that they start around $70 and you'd need 2 for starters."

Will I still be able to use my 3 HR20-100s as my DVRs and Replace my H20-100 with a H24? Just worryin` on just what exactly I`ll have to do for DECA.
The Upgrade will be a Great help to me as I have 2 Single wire Setups with a DVR & the H20. New Setup will Include Appropriate Dish & Include Replacement for my WB68 Correct? Anything Else of Note?


----------



## dmk679

DECA sounds great for many homes, probably the majority right now.

Looking forward, the amount of connected hardware will increase (eg tv, blueray, game consoles). To me, it makes sense to use a networking solution that will provide access to all devices, not just the directv box. This is why I bought a 1000' box of cat5e and learned how to run and splice cable. A little over a $100 later (and a donated 24-port 10/100 cisco switch), the whole house is up on a wired network that runs without a hiccup.


----------



## dennisj00

DECA will be great for MANY homes. . . it will be installed and supported by D*tv.

It is not the second coming of networking. . . there is no reason to try to justify it beyond ethernet.

On a low tech comparison, it's nothing more than the use of the black/yellow pair of a 4-wire phone cable for the light on the princess phones. It was installed and maintained by the phone company. It worked.

DECA is simply an ethernet transport on the existing RG-6 cable that puts your H/HRs on the same hub or 'cloud'. You can do the same with a switch and cat5 or good wireless.

My network works fine for MRV, both wired and wireless. We see no difference in the trickplay on local or remote MRV on either the wired or wireless.


----------



## veryoldschool

dennisj00 said:


> DECA will be great for MANY homes. . . it will be installed and supported by D*tv.
> 
> It is not the second coming of networking. . . there is no reason to try to justify it beyond ethernet.
> 
> On a low tech comparison, it's nothing more than the use of the black/yellow pair of a 4-wire phone cable for the light on the princess phones. It was installed and maintained by the phone company. It worked.
> 
> DECA is simply an ethernet transport on the existing RG-6 cable that puts your H/HRs on the same hub or 'cloud'. You can do the same with a switch and cat5 or good wireless.
> 
> My network works fine for MRV, both wired and wireless. We see no difference in the trickplay on local or remote MRV on either the wired or wireless.


You may be lucky or simply have a good setup, or....
You really can't know if they is any improvement [or not] without comparing to a DECA network, though.


----------



## dsw2112

bigmac94 said:


> Will I still be able to use my 3 HR20-100s as my DVRs and Replace my H20-100 with a H24? Just worryin` on just what exactly I`ll have to do for DECA.
> The Upgrade will be a Great help to me as I have 2 Single wire Setups with a DVR & the H20. New Setup will Include Appropriate Dish & Include Replacement for my WB68 Correct? Anything Else of Note?


- Your HR20's will work with a DECA dongle. 
- You could receive any HD receiver for your H20 (H24 isn't guaranteed) 
- Your LNB will likely be replaced by a SWMLnb and the WB68 by a splitter. 
- If you want on-demand, mediashare, etc make sure your router has an open port or attach a switch.


----------



## veryoldschool

bigmac94 said:


> Will I still be able to use my 3 HR20-100s as my DVRs and Replace my H20-100 with a H24? Just worryin` on just what exactly I`ll have to do for DECA.
> The Upgrade will be a Great help to me as I have 2 Single wire Setups with a DVR & the H20. New Setup will Include Appropriate Dish & Include Replacement for my WB68 Correct? Anything Else of Note?


Yes, your 3 HR20-100s will get a unique DECA setup, with power splitter, bandstop filter and DECA.
Your H20-100 will be swapped for an H21/23/24 with networking. This does fall under the $99 upgrade fee + $49 service call charge.
The receiver swap will come with a programing commitment, but the DECA upgrade doesn't have one.


----------



## BudShark

dennisj00 said:


> DECA will be great for MANY homes. . . it will be installed and supported by D*tv.
> 
> It is not the second coming of networking. . . there is no reason to try to justify it beyond ethernet.


Nobody said it was, but see below.



> On a low tech comparison, it's nothing more than the use of the black/yellow pair of a 4-wire phone cable for the light on the princess phones. It was installed and maintained by the phone company. It worked.
> 
> DECA is simply an ethernet transport on the existing RG-6 cable that puts your H/HRs on the same hub or 'cloud'. You can do the same with a switch and cat5 or good wireless.


Not exactly. First off ethernet and DECA are competing mechanisms that put data on the wire. Ethernet has inherent advantages. DECA happens to have advantages. Neither is inherently better, but it is wrong to claim DECA is ethernet, because its not.



> My network works fine for MRV, both wired and wireless. We see no difference in the trickplay on local or remote MRV on either the wired or wireless.


You are the first person I've ever seen say wireless and wired trickplay are equal. In that case you'd see no difference on DECA. I can tell you I see differences between wireless and wired. I see marginal differences between DECA and wired.


----------



## dminches

I wish this thread had remained on topic and discussed MRV via DECA configurations for various setups since that's what I am in need of. Is there another forum that does this? I have multiple DVRs and receivers and some legacy TiVos with a WB616 and would like to understand how this whole thing comes together with SWM and DECA and whatever else is needed to get MRV working well. I am currently using the beta over CAT6 ethernet and it works nicely with wired machines and doesn't with wireless. So, DECA is certainly a consideration.


----------



## veryoldschool

dminches said:


> I wish this thread had remained on topic and discussed MRV via DECA configurations for various setups since that's what I am in need of. Is there another forum that does this? I have multiple DVRs and receivers and some legacy TiVos with a WB616 and would like to understand how this whole thing comes together with SWM and DECA and whatever else is needed to get MRV working well. I am currently using the beta over CAT6 ethernet and it works nicely with wired machines and doesn't with wireless. So, DECA is certainly a consideration.


Not sure this thread really is for the answers you want.
This thread might have some: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=175049

This thread seems to be more a discussion of the two types of network.


----------



## bigmac94

veryoldschool said:


> Yes, your 3 HR20-100s will get a unique DECA setup, with power splitter, bandstop filter and DECA.
> Your H20-100 will be swapped for an H21/23/24 with networking. This does fall under the $99 upgrade fee + $49 service call charge.
> The receiver swap will come with a programing commitment, but the DECA upgrade doesn't have one.


Will Include SWIM Hookup for my single wire Connections Right?(Wires are Run inside Wall- Reason for not running other wires.)
Thought With DECA Hookup went with H24 & HR24? Not Necessary to use?


----------



## BudShark

bigmac94 said:


> Will Include SWIM Hookup for my single wire Connections Right?(Wires are Run inside Wall- Reason for not running other wires.)
> Thought With DECA Hookup went with H24 & HR24? Not Necessary to use?


Yes... all MRV installations include SWiM if not in place.

DECA includes adapters for MRV capable receivers that are not 24s. Its an external adapter that connects to the coax and has an ethernet patch cable run between it and the receiver. You do NOT have to have 24s for MRV and/or DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

bigmac94 said:


> Thought With DECA Hookup went with H24 & HR24? Not Necessary to use?


H/HR24s are still in limited supply. DirecTV is trying to earmark them for DECA/MRV installs, but this isn't a guarantee you will get them. "DECA" [DirecTV Ethernet over Coax Adapter] is what will be used for receivers without it internal.


----------



## Phil T

My DECA installer only had a HR23 with him. I requested a HR24. He went back to the shop and got me one!!


----------



## harsh

BudShark said:


> Unfortunately, this is a common mischaracterization.
> 
> Networks don't have lanes, they only have 1 lane, always (unless you bring in aggregates, but we aren't doing that in Ethernet or DECA).


This represents the fundamental failure of your arguments. Switched Ethernet typically has as many paths through the switch as it has ports. Each port provides separate current loop paths to and from the connected node. The _only_ time there is contention is when two or more nodes try to send to the same node or one node trys to send to all nodes (a broadcast packet). In MRV, this doesn't happen unless someone trys to access content on a DVR that is already engaged. Arguing that remote control commands or traffic between other nodes might interfere is pointless. Remote control commands travel on a different physical path as do other MRV sessions. Contention shouldn't happen very often and *IF* (a gigantic if) it does, the packet size and count are negligible


> So what is the difference?
> 
> Prioritization. The ability to bypass the queue (window) on both the server side, in order to request a new set point in the stream (FF 30 seconds) and the client, to tell it to stop processing packets until it gets to the new setpoint.


Prioritization doesn't bypass anything -- it only delays the inevitable. If most of the traffic has the same priority (as all MRV activity presumably does), no one stream is going to advance ahead of another stream and all requests must eventually be served (you can't summarily ignore a broadcast request because there's streaming traffic present in the segment).


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> This represents the fundamental failure of your arguments. Switched Ethernet typically has as many paths through the switch as it has ports. Each port provides separate current loop paths to and from the connected node. The _only_ time there is contention is when two or more nodes try to send to the same node or one node trys to send to all nodes (a broadcast packet). In MRV, this doesn't happen unless someone trys to access content on a DVR that is already engaged. Arguing that remote control commands or traffic between other nodes might interfere is pointless. Remote control commands travel on a different physical path as do other MRV sessions. Contention shouldn't happen very often and *IF* (a gigantic if) it does, the packet size and count are negligiblePrioritization doesn't bypass anything -- it only delays the inevitable. If most of the traffic has the same priority (as all MRV activity presumably does), no one stream is going to advance ahead of another stream and all requests must eventually be served (you can't summarily ignore a broadcast request because there's streaming traffic present in the segment).


Huh? do you even know what you are talking about anymore? 

Show me where in my quote I said this caused contention. Oh wait, I didn't. You've mixed discussions, arguments, and quotes in a really bad way.

So you arbitrarily have decided DirecTV won't use the prioritization that is inherent in MoCA for their command/control packets? Interesting. Didn't know we were allowed to do that. I've arbitrarily decided you can't post in any thread related to a product you don't have.  There, everyones happy! You win the DECA argument, and Harsh can't post in DirecTV forums anymore! Yippeee! Win-Win!   !rolling


----------



## ricochet

harsh said:


> The _only_ time there is contention is when two or more nodes try to send to the same node or one node trys to send to all nodes (a broadcast packet).


Not actually true. The most obvious case is a node sending packets to another node that is on a slower link. A more subtle one, at least with store and forward switches, is a big packet followed by two smaller ones. The two small ones will be queued, and if so inclined a priority decision can be made on which to send after the big packet has gone. Flow control is another situation that can cause contention with only two nodes. I'm sure there are other ways but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I would probably agree these scenarios are not typical in most MRV scenarios on most home networks, but then I've never seen MRV traffic captures.

Oh, and actually you can summarily ignore a broadcast packet, potentially "forever", if there are other higher priority packets to send.


----------



## harsh

ricochet said:


> I would probably agree these scenarios are not typical in most MRV scenarios on most home networks, but then I've never seen MRV traffic captures.


And therein withers the QoS argument as applied to MRV in switched Ethernet.

Surely one can concoct all sorts of worst-case network traffic jam scenarios but the key is considering whether they have measurable likelihood of happening in practice.


----------



## harsh

BudShark said:


> Show me where in my quote I said this caused contention.


You didn't use the term contention. Instead you introduced the concept of freeway traffic queuing -- a symbolic scenario where packets have to wait for (contend with) other packets for progress to their destination.


> So you arbitrarily have decided DirecTV won't use the prioritization that is inherent in MoCA for their command/control packets?


I'm not talking about DECA. I'm talking about switched Ethernet which seems to have been unduly burdened with misinformation.

DECA/MoCA need their QoS to overcome some nasty hardware limitations and that's fine for them. The benefit to using the same technology on switched Ethernet would likely be negligible.


----------



## jdspencer

BudShark said:


> ...but it is wrong to claim DECA is ethernet, because its not.....


Then what is the "E" in DECA?
DirecTV *Ethernet* over Coax Adapter


----------



## LameLefty

jdspencer said:


> Then what is the "E" in DECA?
> DirecTV *Ethernet* over Coax Adapter


Could as well be "Ethernet *to* Coax Adapter." Hell, mine doesn't even say "DECA" on it. It say DirecTV Connected Home Adapter.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I'm talking about switched Ethernet which seems to have been unduly burdened with misinformation.
> 
> DECA/MoCA need their QoS to overcome some nasty hardware limitations and that's fine for them. The benefit to using the same technology on switched Ethernet would likely be negligible.


harsh .. Feel free to use Ethernet in your installation .. as everyone can, Ethernet can be used but will not be supported by DIRECTV.

Quite simply, the best option is DIRECTV Connect Home adapters (formerly known as DECA). It works as well as or better than Ethernet, costs less for new installations with DIRECTV's upgrade program, and is supported by DIRECTV going forward.

DECA is NOT for other devices, it is for connecting your DIRECTV receivers together. It provides the best option, but no it does not provide the only option. The geeks of the world that have prewired their homes for Ethernet may find a cost benefit to staying Ethernet. If you only consider cost in that scenario, then yes .. Ethernet is better. But if cost is not a consideration, then DECA still is the right answer because of the support factor.

Let's keep this all in perspective. The point is NOT to say that Ethernet isn't viable. Ethernet is a great .. it makes the world run and is a proven technology. It is a general purpose technology. DECA is a specific use technology designed for interconnecting DIRECTV receivers .. optimized for video transmission with Quality of Service for making the user experience as good as possible.

I've said it before and will say it again. If you have Ethernet installed and are happy with it .. Then use it. If you are having problems or don't have a network, you should look at DECA first. There is no reason spending money on connecting your receivers without seriously considering DECA as it is the right tool to use even though other tools will work.


----------



## wavemaster

harsh said:


> You didn't use the term contention. Instead you introduced the concept of freeway traffic queuing -- a symbolic scenario where packets have to wait for (contend with) other packets for progress to their destination.I'm not talking about DECA. I'm talking about switched Ethernet which seems to have been unduly burdened with misinformation.
> 
> DECA/MoCA need their QoS to overcome some nasty hardware limitations and that's fine for them. The benefit to using the same technology on switched Ethernet would likely be negligible.


Good points.

Also as IPV6 becomes more prevalent not only will it handle priority, it will also handle protocol switching as well as a whole host of new security features. GigE will be standard and you will start seeing a lot more fibre. We have been working with it for a couple years now and it is amazing how heavy network loads can be managed compared to IPV4.

I do think DECA will handle all but the most extreme D* installs and assuming a lot of people want it, they should hook up a bunch. For us we will stick with one technology that will handle the whole network and not bits and pieces of it.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> You didn't use the term contention. Instead you introduced the concept of freeway traffic queuing -- a symbolic scenario where packets have to wait for (contend with) other packets for progress to their destination.I'm not talking about DECA. I'm talking about switched Ethernet which seems to have been unduly burdened with misinformation.
> 
> DECA/MoCA need their QoS to overcome some nasty hardware limitations and that's fine for them. The benefit to using the same technology on switched Ethernet would likely be negligible.


Arguing that a piece of technology is used to overcome nasty hardware limitations is a fallacy.

If that was the case, then I can argue that installing a big piece of "expensive" hardware at a central point of my house and having to run ALL cables to that one piece of hardware to overcome "nasty hardware limitations" creates an undue burden. And yes, I'm talking about switches and ethernet.

The point is this: MoCA/DECA were designed to be used on existing wiring found in the majority of homes and to distribute primarily video. As part of that task, they added in QoS features. Those features allow a vendor to prioritize packets like command/control.

Would DECA work without QoS?? Yes. Would it be burdened with nasty limitations causing MRV to not work? No. It has enough bandwidth and performance to allow it to work without QoS. In fact, Ethernet and DECA without QoS would likely perform exactly the same. The advantages being solely installation and cable type - with some people preferring Ethernet and others DECA depending on what they had in place.

But... DECA *adds* QoS to this equation. It has a feature, inherently built in, that provides a benefit to using it. Minor now, bigger as the pie gets larger (multiple streams from one box, RVU). Its not that it is needed to work as you seemed to imply. Its that it ADDS to the end user experience. Ethernet installations for video like to use QoS as well. And if you had an Ethernet QoS infrastructure and an implementation that supported it - I'd again say they perform the exact same. But... expecting to find specific routers/switches with a QoS implementation you can leverage at a customers home is not feasible. and thus, I continue to believe DECA will outperform Ethernet in DirecTV Connected Homes - and that gap will increase as DirecTV implements multiple streams and RVU as their roadmap implies.


----------



## ricochet

harsh said:


> And therein withers the QoS argument as applied to MRV in switched Ethernet.


I was just pointing out contention issues that you missed when you threw out a blanket statement declaring how switches work. I wasn't attempting to argue the necessity of QoS feature. If I was doing that I would probably first investigate the impact of VOD downloads running simultaneous with MRV.

To be honest, I have no idea if the QoS features in DECA are of any use or not. In my opinion DirecTV would be switching to DECA even if they didn't exist. The simplified install is the huge win and anything else is pretty much just gravy.


----------



## RobertE

jdspencer said:


> Then what is the "E" in DECA?
> DirecTV *Ethernet* over Coax Adapter


Actually, it's *D*irecTv *E*thernet to *C*oax *A*dapter.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The question is moot, as they probably won't be called DECA's outside of DIRECTV anyway. I'm not sure what they will be called but a little birdie suggested they won't be called DECA's.


----------



## harsh

BudShark said:


> Would DECA work without QoS?? Yes. Would it be burdened with nasty limitations causing MRV to not work? No. It has enough bandwidth and performance to allow it to work without QoS.


These questions are maybes (perhaps even probablys), under controlled conditions.


> In fact, Ethernet and DECA without QoS would likely perform exactly the same.


This is only true of a network where there is "up to" a small number MRV sessions going on and no broadcast packets or non-streaming data (remote commands should be considered non-streaming data). Those are by no means realistic home networking conditions. Without some form of advanced QoS or data that has already been conditioned elsewhere, MoCA can be easily hobbled. In the applications where it is currently being used, that isn't so much of a problem as the data rates are only as high as one's pipe to the Internet and the traffic is coming through already sorted in a linear fashion.

MoCA 1.0 (100Mbps) has been deployed for some time now as part of FIOS and it has been done almost exclusively as a mechanism for moving data (as opposed to streaming media). Verizon's CTO and Senior VP of Technology claimed in November 2007 that MoCA would need to be upped to 400Mbps to be truly useful as a home networking technology. This was offered just a month after MoCA 1.1 (175Mbps) had been ratified.

Throwing in the caution that DECA should only be used for MRV, you still need a conventional switched Ethernet network to serve your computers, media extenders, Blu-ray players and the like. Switched Ethernet gives one the tools to do it all today and is eminently upgradeable to much higher capacities without significant effort or resource outlay.


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> [...] MoCA 1.0 (100Mbps) has been deployed for some time now as part of FIOS and it has been done almost exclusively as a mechanism for moving data (as opposed to streaming media) [...]


Not sure what your point is, but FiOSTV MRV is streaming. They currently utilize diskless clients. And they move a lot more bits around... the unvarnished MPEG-2 feed, as supplied by the broadcaster.


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> The question is moot, as they probably won't be called DECA's outside of DIRECTV anyway. I'm not sure what they will be called but a little birdie suggested they won't be called DECA's.


This is reminiscent of the FTM inconsistency.


----------



## veryoldschool

Steve said:


> Not sure what your point is, but...


A lot of us have been wondering the same thing, since he doesn't have nor will likely ever get this service.


----------



## harsh

ricochet said:


> To be honest, I have no idea if the QoS features in DECA are of any use or not. In my opinion DirecTV would be switching to DECA even if they didn't exist.


As the QoS and header compression features would appear to give MoCA 1.1 a 75% throughput advantage over MoCA 1.0 using the same RF bandwidth, its significant contribution doesn't seem debatable.


----------



## RobertE

harsh said:


> This is reminiscent of the FTM inconsistency.


Not nearly as inconsistant as your "facts" 

Anyway, the name change from FTM to SWiM, was just that...a name change. Granted it went from a very geeky name, to a moderately geeky name, but nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> A lot of us have been wondering the same thing, since he doesn't have nor will likely ever get this service.


This isn't about the service. It is about the technology behind the service and divining which technology will be the best choice for each installation.

What it would appear to come down to is that DECA is well suited to MRV and perhaps some VoD. If your needs go beyond that, switched Ethernet is probably a better investment.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> This isn't about the service. It is about the technology behind the service and divining which technology will be the best choice for each installation.
> 
> What it would appear to come down to is that DECA is well suited to MRV and perhaps some VoD. If your needs go beyond that, switched Ethernet is probably a better investment.



"your" installation perhaps, but you don't have one, so...
From the receiver's point of view, DECA may be the best for all, but it isn't a complete home network, since you may have/want internet access and other devices.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> This isn't about the service. It is about the technology behind the service and divining which technology will be the best choice for each installation.
> 
> What it would appear to come down to is that DECA is well suited to MRV and perhaps some VoD. If your needs go beyond that, switched Ethernet is probably a better investment.


Ummm -  I thought the topic is "MRV with DECA verses hardwired ethernet?" Doiesn't this make the entire discussion about the service? We only ever discuss DECA in relation to the DirecTV part of the name, its use for MRV installations, and thats it. This isn't a general technical forum. Those exist if thats what you are after. This is SPECIFICALLY the use of DECA on DirecTV installations for the purpose of the DirecTV Connected Home initiative. For that purpose, DECA is flat out brilliant.


----------



## bobcamp1

wavemaster said:


> For us we will stick with one technology that will handle the whole network and not bits and pieces of it.


I don't think anyone has just one type of physical layer in their house anymore. For example, my D* receivers could be connected via MoCA, my main PC connects via Cat 5e (it's right next to the router), and my Wii and Tivo connect using 802.11g. They are all on the same network. I just used whatever was easiest to connect them all together.


----------



## bobcamp1

harsh said:


> As the QoS and header compression features would appear to give MoCA 1.1 a 75% throughput advantage over MoCA 1.0 using the same RF bandwidth, its significant contribution doesn't seem debatable.


Moca 1.1 gives around 175 Mbps of typical throughput. The D* receivers' Ethernet jack and the electronics behind it are just 100 Mbps.

The header compression features don't matter much, as the box can't take advantage of all of that bandwidth. But I'd bet that packet prioritization helps.

Verizon wants even faster rates because they are looking into the future. Current MoCA speeds are fast enough to stream one or two HD MPEG2 programs with just a few minor problems. But they'd like to get that to "several HD streams with no problems."


----------



## Doug Brott

BudShark said:


> Ummm -  I thought the topic is "MRV with DECA verses hardwired ethernet?" Doiesn't this make the entire discussion about the service? We only ever discuss DECA in relation to the DirecTV part of the name, its use for MRV installations, and thats it. This isn't a general technical forum. Those exist if thats what you are after. This is SPECIFICALLY the use of DECA on DirecTV installations for the purpose of the DirecTV Connected Home initiative. For that purpose, DECA is flat out brilliant.


Correct .. This is not a general purpose network discussion. DECA is limited to 16 devices. It's very likely NOT the right solution for a general purpose installation. For connecting DIRECTV receivers, it is exactly the right solution in most situations.


----------



## jgarveyATL

I have wired all TV locations with 2 Cat5e and 2 Coax. I have a central wiring closet where all cat5 and coax terminate. I also have digital voice and a AT&T microcell in my home, and use QoS on my wireless router to prioritize in-bound and out-bound traffic. I also have a gigabit (unmanaged) switch for traffic inside the home.

I am switching to DTV as soon as the faster HR24s are released nationwide. My question mostly revolves around how to best handle QoS. 

I have read on these forums that I will get better performance using DECA. But I don't understand how to manage traffic on the DECA network. I'm guessing where DECA plugs into my router that I will have to prioritize the MAC addresses of each DTV box. 

Thanks for any guidance.
j-


----------



## Doug Brott

jgarveyATL said:


> I am switching to DTV as soon as the faster HR24s are released nationwide. My question mostly revolves around how to best handle QoS.
> 
> I have read on these forums that I will get better performance using DECA. But I don't understand how to manage traffic on the DECA network. I'm guessing where DECA plugs into my router that I will have to prioritize the MAC addresses of each DTV box.


The beauty of DECA is that it doesn't traverse your router. Everything stays on the coax when communicating between boxes for MRV. So you do not have to do anything to enjoy the QoS benefits. If you want to access video on demand, DIRECTV2PC or other home network/Internet based features, you will need one broadband DECA that will connect to your router.

Hx24s have built in DECA which makes it even better for connectivity between boxes because you have to do absolutely NOTHING if all you have are 24s (except the broadband DECA connection).


----------



## dennisj00

You don't need to worry about the traffic on the DECA group (or cloud). It has one interface to your local LAN for VOD and Media Share activities.

Or you can connect your H/HRs with ethernet and still not worry about the traffic.

QOS on your home router doesn't work on the local LAN.


----------



## lugnutathome

Despite the growling and some of the "ears laid back" moments this has been an interesting thread to monitor. Doug's statement sums it up pretty well really. For the LARGE portion of the DTV subscriber base, DECA *is* hands down the best solution. Largely because they have no reliable supportable alternative.

For those of that have implemented a hardwired network infrastructure for other purposes it can serve as the transport layer for MRV until DTV finds some trick feature that our infrastructure cannot support if that day never comes, well cool... I can live with that. But for now at least I feel I have to.

One thing for all of you to realize is that Direct keeps changing their technological direction. I started with a 3LNB dish a single lead to each room that carried both Terrestrial and Sat signals combined in a 12 port multiswitch and used a diplexer to sort them out at the rooms.

Direct then opened up using the OTA bands to expand their HD offerings and I had to add a second set of coax lines (plus a 3rd for rooms with DVR service) in order to still utilize the sat and terrestrial signals (of which DTV only airs a small subset of what is available off air). I also had to add a wideband powered multiswitch.

Most of you just either did it yourself or had DTV send out the truck and the service person did the deed.

My instance is somewhat different from most in that my home is a site engineered for commercial installation with 150 ft lines from dish to head end and room lines up to over 190 ft long. Much of my install has never been touched by the DTV residential service team (and will not be) and I have been responsible for the cabling and the multiswitch since day one.

Now they implement SWM and again I had to re implement the architecture to move forward (or add more receivers as I had chosen to do).

I had a hardwired network implemented at the time of the initial coax network being dropped in. All of my work was done by a local low voltage specialist firm until my SWM conversion which was handled by a local AV firm I deal with that specializes in custom and commercial installations.

Make no mistake, I am a residential customer but my "Winchester house" is commercial in it's sizing for cabling in particular. I could chance the standard residential low powered or passive equipment would work or KNOW the commercial stuff would. I've chosen the latter and paid a lot for each iteration as a result.

I intend to leverage my existing network in combination with my dual cascaded SWM8 modules till such time that the DTV feature set demands I fork over to DECA OR I have a past warranty SWM8 module failure and DTV has either proven the longevity of the SWM16 or re engineered it so that the stacking 2 SWM8 modules allows for adequate cooling.

In research for my current SWM conversion we chose cascading over stacking due to high instances of heat failure on the "smothered" SWM8 module in the stack. DTV may have engineered around this already but time will tell on this. I hate hardware caused outages

So even though my circumstances dictate to my way of thinking that I'm safest remaining on my own network for now, I do firmly believe the DECA solution is best for the vast majority of subscribers and ultimately may be for my situation as well once I'm satisfied the kinks have been worked out.

There has been some great points floated here and both sides have valid points but in the end the demographically prevalent subscriber will not have a hardwired network in a "Winchester house" and DECA should slip right in transparently and perfectly enhance their DTV service.

I really wish I could fall down that rabbit hole with confidence now myself.

Don "and now it's time to see if my database build is completed" Bolton



Doug Brott said:


> Correct .. This is not a general purpose network discussion. DECA is limited to 16 devices. It's very likely NOT the right solution for a general purpose installation. For connecting DIRECTV receivers, it is exactly the right solution in most situations.


----------



## veryoldschool

Fast forward a year or so and for those with a "Henry" house, a SWiM-16 & H/HR24s will be the "only way to go". :lol:


----------



## bigmac94

bobcamp1 said:


> I don't think anyone has just one type of physical layer in their house anymore. For example, my D* receivers could be connected via MoCA, my main PC connects via Cat 5e (it's right next to the router), and my Wii and Tivo connect using 802.11g. They are all on the same network. I just used whatever was easiest to connect them all together.


I Was under that Impression,DECA for MRV & WiFi for the other stuff?(Music)
Different Strokes for Different Folkes...as the man said


----------



## Steve

dennisj00 said:


> [...] QOS on your home router doesn't work on the local LAN.


Correct, but there is a QOS standard for switched traffic. E.g., here are the specs for my D-Link DGS-2208 gigaswitch. Note that it also supports "jumbo frames" and buffers 192k bytes per connection, in an effort to maximize throughput:

+ IEEE 802.3 10Base-T Ethernet
+ IEEE 802.3u 100Base-TX Fast Ethernet
+ IEEE 802.3ab 1000Base-T Gigabit Ethernet
+ IEEE 802.3 Nway Auto-negotiation
+ IEEE 802.3x Flow Control
*+ IEEE 802.1p QoS Prioritization
*

Number of Ports: Eight 10/100/1000BASE-T
+ MAC Address Table: 4k
*+ Switch Fabric: 16Gbps
**+ Packet Buffer Memory: 192KBytes per Device
*+ Transmission Method: Store-and-forward
*+ Jumbo Frames: Up to 9720 Bytes
*+ Cable Diagnostic LEDs


----------



## dsw2112

Stuart Sweet said:


> The question is moot, as they probably won't be called DECA's outside of DIRECTV anyway. I'm not sure what they will be called but a little birdie suggested they won't be called DECA's.





harsh said:


> This is reminiscent of the FTM inconsistency.


Harsh - Actually there's nothing inconsistent about it. DECA was a production name, and D* marketing wants to utilize customer feedback to improve it. Once again, you might know this if you were a customer...


----------



## wavemaster

If you only have a single (DECA to Ethernet) port on your system and have 4 or more DVR's on there, how well does it handle VOD and media share through the single port? For large installs I see a big bottle neck in that setup especially using media share. 

Also not to support or defend, but rather someone has D or DECA or not, does not change network protocols or specifications. It's like saying that a Russian rocket scientist does not know rockets because he doesn't work for NASSA or work on YOUR rocket.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> If you only have a single (DECA to Ethernet) port on your system and have 4 or more DVR's on there, how well does it handle VOD and media share through the single port? For large installs I see a big bottle neck in that setup especially using media share.


VOD would be limited by your ISP connection, so it's not the issue.
Media share on the other hand "might" be limited by the 100 Mb/s output of the DECA.
DECA is limited to 16 devices so not sure "how large" you would really get.
The SWiM-16 has the DECA bridging [with the most tuners], so this more than likely would be the limiting factor to larger systems.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> VOD would be limited by your ISP connection, so it's not the issue.
> Media share on the other hand "might" be limited by the 100 Mb/s output of the DECA.
> DECA is limited to 16 devices so not sure "how large" you would really get.
> The SWiM-16 has the DECA bridging [with the most tuners], so this more than likely would be the limiting factor to larger systems.


VOD is limited by D's pipe and what they will allocate per connection, AAGR the broadband user will be able to pull more than D is willing to supply. We have never seen D traffic go above 2mbps where we can pull up to 45Mbps. So the real test would be multiple media share movies which would probably be the exception and not the rule.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> VOD is limited by D's pipe and what they will allocate per connection, AAGR the broadband user will be able to pull more than D is willing to supply. We have never seen D traffic go above 2mbps where we can pull up to 45Mbps. So the real test would be multiple media share movies which would probably be the exception and not the rule.


I've got a 6 Mb/s DSL, that tests out @ 5 and this seems to be my limiting factor for VOD. I've read some with higher find their max to be 7 Mb/s from the DirecTV server.
I dumped my cable modem because they were limiting my VOD from DirecTV.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> I've got a 6 Mb/s DSL, that tests out @ 5 and this seems to be my limiting factor for VOD. I've read some with higher find their max to be 7 Mb/s from the DirecTV server.
> I dumped my cable modem because they were limiting my VOD from DirecTV.


I wonder where you pull from. On a DS3 (or T3) line we have here I routinely pull over 40mbps from our servers but have never seen a VOD stream over 2mbps. Our Cable line is supposed to be 20mbps and I see the same on that (it is comcast and they sure will screw with your traffic to suit their needs) It is probably based on your location in relation to their servers compared to ours.


----------



## Doug Brott

Either way, the VOD limit is from the inbound pipe (either ISP or DIRECTV) .. a single broadband connected link will do the task.

As for Multimedia, I don't see that really being a problem unless perhaps 15 devices (16th is broadband) were trying to pull something from media servers in the house at the same time. Even then the bandwidth may be OK. There will be no QoS with the media server, though.

That being said, how many people have 15 TVs or that many people to be viewing something on their own at the exact same time. We should think a little bit realistically here. A single broadband connection is probably more than enough.


----------



## Bigg

Doug Brott said:


> The beauty of DECA is that it doesn't traverse your router. Everything stays on the coax when communicating between boxes for MRV. So you do not have to do anything to enjoy the QoS benefits. If you want to access video on demand, DIRECTV2PC or other home network/Internet based features, you will need one broadband DECA that will connect to your router.
> 
> Hx24s have built in DECA which makes it even better for connectivity between boxes because you have to do absolutely NOTHING if all you have are 24s (except the broadband DECA connection).


How are they going to handle new installs for activating MRV? Will they automatically allow it with HR24's and SWiM because they have DECA built in? So at that point, the customer could pay nothing for a DECA-specific install and just plug in their own Etherne

t network for MRV and to also get DoD? Are they going to install the DECA bridge for free too? Would two HR24's still require a DECA filter between the SWiM LNB and the first splitter?



Doug Brott said:


> That being said, how many people have 15 TVs or that many people to be viewing something on their own at the exact same time. We should think a little bit realistically here. A single broadband connection is probably more than enough.


Yeah, unless you start talking about full computers or NAS devices, a 100mb "choke point" isn't going to choke you. Of course there's the other side of the adapter where DECA probably won't reach an actual 100mbps, so it's not an issue.


----------



## Doug Brott

Bigg said:


> How are they going to handle new installs for activating MRV? Will they automatically allow it with HR24's and SWiM because they have DECA built in? So at that point, the customer could pay nothing for a DECA-specific install and just plug in their own Etherne
> 
> t network for MRV and to also get DoD? Are they going to install the DECA bridge for free too? Would two HR24's still require a DECA filter between the SWiM LNB and the first splitter?


If there is no broadband DECA and all STBs are 24s, then they will automatically "see" each other on the network without doing anything at all (assuming SWiM). No extra cabling past the coax (for MRV) which is needed for TV.

I suspect (but don't know) that if someone wants multi-room when they install that 24s will get the priority for all boxes (either an H or HR depending on need). If they don't want MRV, then existing inventory. At some point, inventory will be down enough that 24s will be predominant in the chain making MRV more and more available to customers.

There has to be some sort of method to the madness at this point. Not everyone is gonna want MRV, but for those that do, there needs to be some sort of way to try and get them a 24 first and then shift down to other H/HR w/DECA.


----------



## Steve

veryoldschool said:


> I've got a 6 Mb/s DSL, that tests out @ 5 and this seems to be my limiting factor for VOD. *I've read some with higher find their max to be 7 Mb/s from the DirecTV server.*
> I dumped my cable modem because they were limiting my VOD from DirecTV.


FWIW, I'm downloading a 1080p VOD movie now and a "speedtest.net" speedtest shows me that only 3.5 mbps of my nominal 15mbps connection is currently available to my PC. Prior to starting the download, the pc tested-out at 15.5mbps.

So a conservative estimate of this particular 1080p download puts it at about 11 mbps from DirecTV's server.


----------



## Bigg

Doug Brott said:


> If there is no broadband DECA and all STBs are 24s, then they will automatically "see" each other on the network without doing anything at all (assuming SWiM). No extra cabling past the coax (for MRV) which is needed for TV.
> 
> I suspect (but don't know) that if someone wants multi-room when they install that 24s will get the priority for all boxes (either an H or HR depending on need). If they don't want MRV, then existing inventory. At some point, inventory will be down enough that 24s will be predominant in the chain making MRV more and more available to customers.
> 
> There has to be some sort of method to the madness at this point. Not everyone is gonna want MRV, but for those that do, there needs to be some sort of way to try and get them a 24 first and then shift down to other H/HR w/DECA.


What about the account side activation? And how will they handle the cost of the broadband adapter for customers who want it? Will it be free with a new install?


----------



## Doug Brott

Bigg said:


> What about the account side activation? And how will they handle the cost of the broadband adapter for customers who want it? Will it be free with a new install?


Some folks in the test market are getting MRV activated as part of the installation. Not quite sure how "non-installs" are going to get activated yet .. might be a phone call, might be via web.

The broadband DECAs are part of the installation. Right now I believe they are using a standard receiver DECA as the broadband DECA, but at some point it will be changed to a specific broadband DECA.


----------



## bobnielsen

Has there been any word on the availability of additional DECAs? I have my H24 and HR24 within the DECA cloud and would like to connect them to my HR21 that way instead of through my router.


----------



## Iwanthd

bobnielsen said:


> Has there been any word on the availability of additional DECAs? I have my H24 and HR24 within the DECA cloud and would like to connect them to my HR21 that way instead of through my router.


Also, any update on availability of SWM16's? I would love to install both of these goodies in my home!


----------



## David Ortiz

Iwanthd said:


> Also, any update on availability of SWM16's? I would love to install both of these goodies in my home!


The installer who did my MRV upgrade had one SWiM-16 on the truck. The HR24 I was able to pick up here in Fresno brought me up to 10 tuners so I needed the SWiM-16. It has a green label on the back, so it's all set for DECA across both outputs.


----------



## Iwanthd

I believe that the Denver area is a test market for MRV, SWM/Deca. Is a simple call to the D* 800 number adequate, or is there a better way to request this upgrade? Do I need to specifically mention SWM16?

I currently have 4 DVR's (2 HR20-100, 2 HR22-100) and an H21-100. I need to add an SD box in another room so I should have enough tuners to qualify.


----------



## David Ortiz

Iwanthd said:


> I believe that the Denver area is a test market for MRV, SWM/Deca. Is a simple call to the D* 800 number adequate, or is there a better way to request this upgrade? Do I need to specifically mention SWM16?
> 
> I currently have 4 DVR's (2 HR20-100, 2 HR22-100) and an H21-100. I need to add an SD box in another room so I should have enough tuners to qualify.


You can call the 800 number and at the voice prompt just say Multi Room Viewing.


----------



## David Ortiz

Iwanthd said:


> I believe that the Denver area is a test market for MRV, SWM/Deca. Is a simple call to the D* 800 number adequate, or is there a better way to request this upgrade? Do I need to specifically mention SWM16?
> 
> I currently have 4 DVR's (2 HR20-100, 2 HR22-100) and an H21-100. I need to add an SD box in another room so I should have enough tuners to qualify.


If you add an HD box, you may get the 24 series box, and you'll be able to do MRV in the other room. If you get an SD box, then you can't do MRV with that receiver.

The SWiM-16 wasn't on my work order initially, but the installer was in contact with a supervisor and asked if he needed to use the SWiM-16 and the supervisor said yes, so that worked out well. It helped that the installer had one with him.


----------



## Bigg

Doug Brott said:


> Some folks in the test market are getting MRV activated as part of the installation. Not quite sure how "non-installs" are going to get activated yet .. might be a phone call, might be via web.
> 
> The broadband DECAs are part of the installation. Right now I believe they are using a standard receiver DECA as the broadband DECA, but at some point it will be changed to a specific broadband DECA.


Someone mentioned that they wouldn't activate MRV on an account that doesn't have DECA? Are they going to allow it to be done through CS for the "exception" customer (i.e. half this forum)? If they require DECA how would an install that was never set up specifically for DECA, but just has it with HR24's and SWiM, get tagged in their system to be able to get MRV?

The DECA receiver-side is free on a new install since it's built into the boxes and they use SWiM anyways, but what about the cost of the broadband adapter? Is it free for a new sub?


----------



## HDJulie

I just had the MRV upgrade & now have DECA & no other networking -- it is not connected to my home network. I find the DECA speed to still be lacking when playing from another DVR. Fast forward lags & then jumps just like it did when I had an ethernet cable connected between the two DVR's. Everything works fine if watching a show on the recorded DVR. I don't know why I have this speed issue when others don't seem to.


----------



## ShinerDraft

I haven't been to DBS lately, so the end of the Beta caught me by surprise.

I'm all wired up with Cat5e & Gigabit. I have an HR20-700 and an HR21-700 and MRV has been ok for me. Picture quality, audio, connection, and reliability have all been fine for me but I'm disappointed in the trickplay performance.

Pulling something off of the 20 and watching it on the 21 is bearable, but going the other direction (21->20) is pretty bad. There's about a 1-2 second delay between the picture on the screen and where you've actually ffwd/rwd to. Combine that with ffwd autocorrect (which I hate), and it's a mess.

Sooooooo.... I know that there isn't really a way to give quantifiable answer to this, but how much better would I be with DECA? I think that if I could get the trickplay in the 21->20 direction to work as well as the 20->21 direction, that I'd be pretty satisfied with spending the $150 to upgrade.

(note, I like the HR20 because of the built in OTA tuner. My market doesn't have locals in HD yet)

Any comments?


----------



## jsmuga

HDJulie said:


> I just had the MRV upgrade & now have DECA & no other networking -- it is not connected to my home network. I find the DECA speed to still be lacking when playing from another DVR. Fast forward lags & then jumps just like it did when I had an ethernet cable connected between the two DVR's. Everything works fine if watching a show on the recorded DVR. I don't know why I have this speed issue when others don't seem to.


That is strange, I see a noticeable difference going from home network to DECA. FF, all the trick play works much better with DECA for me.


----------



## dhkinil

veryoldschool said:


> I don't think there is any situation where someone should "stay away" from DECA.
> Some may not need to change to DECA, if their network is in place and working well for them.


I always like asking you questions as I figure I am pretty old school. Will be happy to pay for MRV, eventually at least, regular season hockey plays havoc with planned recordings, but the beta was a problem. I have a pretty reliable home network, but it was not uncommon to get an error message if I tried to watch things on the "main dvr" that were recorded on the "sub dvr" that I could then watch with no problem if I switched to watching direct. Will DECA remove this possibility. I am thinking of waiting until mid summer so I can be certain to get an HR 24 to replace one of my h23's. But if DECA won't solve the problem I can see no point in paying the extra money.


----------



## HDJulie

jsmartin99 said:


> That is strange, I see a noticeable difference going from home network to DECA. FF, all the trick play works much better with DECA for me.


I was bummed that I saw no difference. I should have my HR24 today & if so, I'm hoping it will make some difference.


----------



## veryoldschool

dhkinil said:


> I have a pretty reliable home network, but it was not uncommon to get an error message if I tried to watch things on the "main dvr" that were recorded on the "sub dvr" that I could then watch with no problem if I switched to watching direct. Will DECA remove this possibility..


Since I moved to DECA some [a long] time back, I've had zero errors.


----------



## Steve

dhkinil said:


> I[...] I have a pretty reliable home network, but it was not uncommon to get an error message if I tried to watch things on the "main dvr" that were recorded on the "sub dvr" that I could then watch with no problem if I switched to watching direct [...]





veryoldschool said:


> Since I moved to DECA some [a long] time back, I've had zero errors.


I have the same experience as *VOS* (first CAT5 and now DECA), unless the reason I can't watch is because someone else in the house is _already _watching that show remotely.

A show can be simultaneously viewed on it's "home" DVR and by one "client". 2 "clients" can't access the same show at the same time.


----------



## dhkinil

veryoldschool said:


> Since I moved to DECA some [a long] time back, I've had zero errors.


thanks much


----------



## jsmuga

HDJulie said:


> I was bummed that I saw no difference. I should have my HR24 today & if so, I'm hoping it will make some difference.


You definitely should the HR24 has been reported to be extremely fast.


----------



## rjdude

jsmartin99 said:


> You definitely should the HR24 has been reported to be extremely fast.


Added HR24 today. It is faster. The only issue I had was trying to activate MRV to my account because (1) receiver was not ready due to required firmware update (2) D* didn't believe I had DECA.

Thanks for all of the valuable DECA input in this forum! The only hiccup was waiting for the firmware update on the new receiver.


----------



## Canis Lupus

wavemaster said:


> If you only have a single (DECA to Ethernet) port on your system and have 4 or more DVR's on there, how well does it handle VOD and media share through the single port?


I have a 3 DVR + H24 6 input setup on DECA and video media share works flawlessly - works as well as MRV does.


----------



## Canis Lupus

veryoldschool said:


> Since I moved to DECA some [a long] time back, I've had zero errors.


Same here. DECA combined with the firmware has made MRV in my home work excellently.


----------

