# DECA vs. Ethernet Technical Discussion



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> You really don't understand DECA, do you?


As a matter of fact, I do.


> DECA is most definitely not a "one conversation at a time" technology.


I probably should have used the phrase "one speaker at a time". Each device that wants to speak must get scheduled and wait their turn to broadcast to the entire network of DECA nodes.

There's quite a bit of bandwidth and buffering can cover the gaps between bursts of data so it generally works pretty well. Up the ante by having one node speak considerably more than normal and things get tighter.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

What thread is this a continuation of?

This one?
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2800224#post2800224
I suggest that this one be closed.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> As a matter of fact, I do.I probably should have used the phrase "one speaker at a time". Each device that wants to speak must get scheduled and wait their turn to broadcast to the entire network of DECA nodes.
> 
> There's quite a bit of bandwidth and buffering can cover the gaps between bursts of data so it generally works pretty well. Up the ante by having one node speak considerably more than normal and things get tighter.


And which method do you prefer on your system, harsh? DECA or ethernet?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> And which method do you prefer on your system, harsh? DECA or ethernet?


Even more to the point, tell us harsh . . . *how is DECA working out for you personally? *For example, right now I have 16 tuners spread out over 7 receives in my house with 5 very active users. Currently, all of those tuners are networked into the same DECA cloud. For me personally, based on my ACTUAL USER EXPERIENCE, I have seen no change in actual MRV performance now as compared to previous arrangements ranging from pure gigabit ethernet to mixed implementations.

So do tell us, what is your experience as a user of DECA? 

(And as a not so slight aside, perhaps if your routine efforts to denigrate Directv's technical implementations weren't quite so transparent and were based on actual experience as a subscriber, people might actually respect what you have to say about something).


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> ...There's quite a bit of bandwidth and buffering can cover the gaps between bursts of data so it generally works pretty well. Up the ante by having one node speak considerably more than normal and things get tighter.


I happen to have some real world experience with a node that "speaks more than normal." I have a self-installed DECA network that I use for additional purposes. The network supports the receivers in my signature, including connectivity for 2 Tv's, Blu-Ray, Wii, 3 computers, and a server. It's routine that the above are used at the same time (including MRV streaming) without consequence. While I haven't taken the time to enable specific metrics on the network, I know from experience that MRV isn't very forgiving on a poor network. We do not have any problems streaming MRV while utilizing the additional components.

While I'd love to place my non D* equipment on a separate ethernet network, I do not have the time at the present. Having recently moved to a home with only coaxial connections DECA was a no-brainer for the time being.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

What is this thread, and why is it here? It seems to be starting in the middle of a discussion..


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> What is this thread, and why is it here? It seems to be starting in the middle of a discussion..


Split from here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2800224#post2800224

Why is it here? I really don't know...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes this thread was split off to let this topic exist separately without entangling the original thread about trickplay in MRV.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Tom Robertson" said:


> Yes this thread was split off to let this topic exist separately without entangling the original thread about trickplay in MRV.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Well that makes more sense now, thanks for explaing guys.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> As a matter of fact, I do.I probably should have used the phrase "one speaker at a time". Each device that wants to speak must get scheduled and wait their turn to broadcast to the entire network of DECA nodes.
> 
> There's quite a bit of bandwidth and buffering can cover the gaps between bursts of data so it generally works pretty well. Up the ante by having one node speak considerably more than normal and things get tighter.


How do you know this? And if it's true, wouldn't running seven severs to seven clients all in a deca cloud at the same time cause some issues in general if only one could speak at a time? Could you please post your technical and logical reasonings explaining how you came to this conclusion without ever even having the units and testing them please?


----------



## A_Bear (Jun 16, 2011)

I personally think harsh was half asleep when posting


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Meh... been there, done this a hundred times. DECA is a more logical implementation and has been proven out over a year. 99.9999% of DirecTV customers will never see a bandwidth limitation or performance problem with an installed and supported DECA installation. And, to further the point, the .0001% who have reported problems were ATTEMPTING to create the problem to prove a point... :sure:

DECA will never see a bandwidth limitation based on the above average consumer grade installation. Period. The perceived or biased conceptions of what DECA is or was are misplaced, moot, and if I had to guess, spoken by someone who does not have nor ever deployed a DirecTV MRV installation.

:grin:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> How do you know this? And if it's true, wouldn't running seven severs to seven clients all in a deca cloud at the same time cause some issues in general if only one could speak at a time?


Thus far, the maximum number I've heard of was six sessions.


> Could you please post your technical and logical reasonings explaining how you came to this conclusion without ever even having the units and testing them please?


Tell me how you've personally conducted testing of seven simultaneous sessions. Your system would appear to be good for up to four. Absent widely accessible tools for measuring overall throughput on the cloud, few can do more than speculate.

I explained my reasoning in my post. If it was too long or the words were too big, I'll summarize: fast forwarding requires a much higher data rate than normal playback. A higher rate demands more bandwidth. Slip requires fast forwarding and skip ostensibly doesn't.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> Thus far, the maximum number I've heard of was six sessions.Tell me how you've personally conducted testing of seven simultaneous sessions. Your system would appear to be good for up to four. Absent widely accessible tools for measuring overall throughput on the cloud, few can do more than speculate.
> 
> *I explained my reasoning in my post*. If it was too long or the words were too big, I'll summarize: fast forwarding requires a much higher data rate than normal playback. A higher rate demands more bandwidth. Slip requires fast forwarding and skip ostensibly doesn't.


Actually, you didn't explain your reasoning. You made several statements about how streaming may work and then applied that to DECA. However, nowhere did you support anything. I can make statements too. It doesn't mean I'm right.

How do you know DECA is "one speaker at a time" system? If I understand MoCA (the basis for DECA) it's a networking protocol scheme and not a system for streaming. What is the technical basis for your assertion?

Since you seem to understand DECA better than the rest of us, and are dubious about seven sessions, where is the practical limit and what is it based on?

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This thread is also a massive case of Deja Vu.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I am enet fan, swapped to deca to future proof the setup for items like the h25, etc.
see zero differences between deca and enet here, but average home owner will not have expensive networking components.

that is all a secondary point though, primary is that an installer can NEVER mess with a customers router to set mrv up.
and if he can't do this then he/she cannot sign the job as complete.

deca HAS to be used because of this no matter what any other concerns are.
and you can be sure D* has tested deca to make sure it handles the average install with a safety factor built in.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> I am enet fan, swapped to deca to future proof the setup for items like the h25, etc.
> see zero differences between deca and enet here [...]


Exactly my experience. I'll add that switching to DECA also allowed me to network boxes in two rooms in my home that were only wired for co-ax. I decided to spend the money on DECA instead of wiring for CAT5 to be "future proof" as *DMac* says, and sure enough DirecTV came out with the H25 which have no CAT5 connection on them! :up: But from am MRV performance standpoint, DECA vs. CAT5 is a wash, based on my own use and testing.



> that is all a secondary point though, primary is that an installer can NEVER mess with a customers router to set mrv up.
> and if he can't do this then he/she cannot sign the job as complete.


Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> I am enet fan, swapped to deca to future proof the setup for items like the h25, etc.
> see zero differences between deca and enet here, but average home owner will not have expensive networking components.


This is what I've maintained all along and will continue to do so .. Remember, we are talking about DIRECTV installations. No one in their right mind would use DECA as their sole home networking solution (although it is possible).

If you have good networking equipment (could be cheap, expensive, whatever, but it must be good), then Ethernet and DECA should be pretty equal. The problem is, there is no way for DIRECTV to guarantee a persons equipment. To do so would mean running Cat5 cable, installing a hardware router/switch, getting the customer to agree to it, etc. etc.

The situation is .. for DIRECTV usage ..

DECA - works pretty much all of the time utilizing existing cabling or cabling that would otherwise be needed for TV service.

Ethernet - works most of the time, but sometimes may not and requires the homeowner to either already have equipment and cable or DIRECTV would need to install additional equipment or cable.

There is no contest when it relates to DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> How do you know DECA is "one speaker at a time" system? If I understand MoCA (the basis for DECA) it's a networking protocol scheme and not a system for streaming. What is the technical basis for your assertion?
> 
> Since you seem to understand DECA better than the rest of us, and are dubious about seven sessions, where is the practical limit and what is it based on?


From the MoCA Alliance Website: http://mocalliance.org/marketing/white_papers/Spirent_white_paper.pdf


Spirent white paper said:


> *MoCA MAC Layer*
> The MoCA standard controls access to the shared MoCA channel using TDMA. Generally, the responsibility for controlling transmissions on the network is assigned dynamically to one MoCA node designated the network controller (NC). The role of the NC is central to the following MoCA MAC-layer operations:
> 
> • System Time: Since MAC layer transmissions are based on TDMA, all nodes connected to a MoCA network must share the same clock reference. The NC is the master reference for the network and advertises the time periodically so nodes may synchronize.
> ...


For the definition of TDMA, I direct you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_division_multiple_access

The take-away from this is that all communications are carefully administered by the network controller node and it tells all of the other nodes when they can speak. This the basis of my claim that DECA is a "one speaker at a time" (TDMA) protocol.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The problem is that "one speaker at a time" is only relevant down to a tiny fraction of a second. There can easily be many, many conversations over any one second. The way you say it is disingenuous to the discussion.

An Ethernet switch also switches between conversation points so technically speaking, Ethernet is also "one speaker at a time" but the reality of both is that in human (read: real) time, many conversations are taking place.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> From the MoCA Alliance Website: http://mocalliance.org/marketing/white_papers/Spirent_white_paper.pdf
> For the definition of TDMA, I direct you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_division_multiple_access
> 
> The take-away from this is that all communications are carefully administered by the network controller node and it tells all of the other nodes when they can speak. This the basis of my claim that DECA is a "one speaker at a time" (TDMA) protocol.


A packet of data travels down the wire and while it's in transit nothing else can transmit or else you have a collision. That's pretty much the definition of most every networking scheme on the planet. One packet or frame at a time in and of itself doesn't describe any limitation on the number of hosts sharing data between each other.

What I don't understand is where you think the choke point is. You keep making statements that there are limitations on how many independent data streams can exist on DECA...which as a general statement is accurate but isn't really true. It's not true in the sense that the practical limit is easily beyond what nearly all subscribers will have in their setups. TDMA/CSMA is how most networks operate and you can have hundreds, or even thousands, of hosts sharing bandwidth with no issues so why is this a problem for DECA?

As an example, I've had four separate MRV session, two On Demand downloads, and one DirecTV2PC stream running at the same time over a DECA network (including a DECA to BB adapter) without a noticeable decrease in performance. However, that's based on personal preception, which is the only practical measurement in this case, and not network metrics.

Why keep making such statements if the implication isn't that number of DECA hosts that can effectively communicate is so small as to be an issue for someone on say, a standard SWiM8 setup. Seriously, unless you are trying to say there is a real limit that the regular subscriber, or even DBSTalk members with large numbers of DVRs/receiers, needs to worry about then spit it out already. If you're gonna imply something then back it up.

The implication that DECA is very limited is certainly how everyone here perceives your statements otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. So, is that what you're trying to say or are you simply posting random DECA info without any implications at all?

Mike


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

In a nutshell, ethernet has collisions, deca does not. You can try to throw in hardware to limit them (ethernet switches) and make them less expensive (buffer them on the switch) but you can't get rid of the concept.

Ethernet will maximize throughput on the network. Deca will guarantee a throughput for any host up to the max number of hosts supported by the network. You can not spam the entire network with Deca assuming you are adhering to protocol. With ethernet it's the wild west and you can spam all you want without breaking protocol, as rude as that may be.

But why are we talking about this?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sunking said:


> In a nutshell, ethernet has collisions, deca does not. You can try to throw in hardware to limit them (ethernet switches) and make them less expensive (buffer them on the switch) but you can't get rid of the concept.
> 
> Ethernet will maximize throughput on the network. Deca will guarantee a throughput for any host up to the max number of hosts supported by the network. You can not spam the entire network with Deca assuming you are adhering to protocol. With ethernet it's the wild west and you can spam all you want without breaking protocol, as rude as that may be.
> 
> But why are we talking about this?


In a nutshell, we're talking about this because someone seems to be implying there is a limitation in DECA clients that is somehow a problem within the current DVR/receiver setup limitations. We're trying to get the crux of the matter and prove/disprove these implications...in a nutshell. :grin:

Mike


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

harsh said:


> From the MoCA Alliance Website: http://mocalliance.org/marketing/white_papers/Spirent_white_paper.pdf
> For the definition of TDMA, I direct you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_division_multiple_access
> 
> The take-away from this is that all communications are carefully administered by the network controller node and it tells all of the other nodes when they can speak. This the basis of my claim that DECA is a "one speaker at a time" (TDMA) protocol.


You are making an assumption that there is a problem with "one speaker at a time".

If the available bandwidth exists, and the latency, QoS, and other factors are in place, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing of relevance for "one speaker at a time".

Please... enlighten us as to why this would be a problem at the bandwidth/latency/speeds we are talking about here? Because, other than the bias of "ooohhhhh I remember 30 years ago how Token Ring worked before new technologies were invented" there's really nothing to see here.

You really going to run 6+ clients all streaming MRV off of 6+ DVRs? Ya got 12 TVs running do ya? If so, my advice... buy 12 DVRs to support the 12 TVs you are running and move on. Oh... and before you do that, call DirecTV so you can actually do MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Since the DECA device limit is 16 nodes and the total tuner limit (across a SWiM-16) is 16 tuners, there's a built in governor to make sure everything works properly.


----------



## webcrawlr (Sep 1, 2007)

Mike Bertelson said:


> A packet of data travels down the wire and while it's in transit nothing else can transmit or else you have a collision. That's pretty much the definition of most every networking scheme on the planet. One packet or frame at a time in and of itself doesn't describe any limitation on the number of hosts sharing data between each other.


From the brief description this reminds me more of Token Ring then Ethernet. It appears that both require permission to talk. With Ethernet there's no permission, just a simple listen and send. If there's packet drop that's where CSMA/CD kicks in.

All interesting stuff to me regardless.

EDIT: And I see that was already mentioned... carry on.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There is a similarity to token ring, but (1) it's not a ring, it's a bus and (2) if a unit drops out (cut wire, whatever), it only affects that unit and not the entire system.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

I'm kinda new here Harsh and I get the impression that you don't actually have DTV service. Do you?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Since the DECA device limit is 16 nodes and the total tuner limit (across a SWiM-16) is 16 tuners, there's a built in governor to make sure everything works properly.


Agreed, and that was part of my point to Harsh. I was being conservative with the SWiM-8. However, if DECA couldn't handle eight "simultaneous" data streams (eight MRV clients) it would be one of the worst networks ever designed.

If properly installed, there should never be any DECA related video/audio issues. End of story.

Mike


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

The math is fairly simple using some general assumptions and rounding to make things simpler. These numbers are probably tweaked in deca.

moca 1.1 (assuming deca is based on this, i have no idea) : 175Mbps max throughput
HD mpeg 2 stream: 20Mbps

175/20 = ~8-9 streams.

Worst case, a full mesh 16 node moca setup would require 240 streams of bandwidth. This would be 16 dvrs talking to the other 15 dvrs all at once. Not plausible in a real environment.

But the real advantage to this is guaranteed scheduling. Virtually zero buffering is ever required and stream control (pause, rewind, ff) is also a guaranteed < 3ms for responsiveness.

Again, worst case, no idea how directv has tweaked things in their implementation.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sunking said:


> Worst case, a full mesh 16 node moca setup would require 240 streams of bandwidth. This would be 16 dvrs talking to the other 15 dvrs all at once. Not plausible in a real environment.


240 streams? perhaps a round-robin of 16 streams with 16 DVRs (yeah, not possible, but still) .. @ 20Mb/s * 16 streams, that's 320 Mb/s ..

A "full" DVR slate would be 8, 16 is possible @ 1 tuner per device (no BB connectivity w/16). So it is breakable, but you're talking about an uber extreme that would limit you in other ways.

Practically, 8 DVRs .. round-robin streaming A -> B, B-> C, C -> D ... H -> A would yield 8 streams .. even @ 20Mb/s (extremely rare), that maxes out @ 160Mb/s


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Oh, and just for a point of note .. why in the world would 8 people be purposefully streaming from the next DVR over? Statistically, if there are 8 people watching each of these DVRs (a necessity for this to be a real world situation), those 8 people would record things on their local DVR rather than their neighbors DVR.

If you ask me, 6, 7 or 8 simultaneous streams on DECA (or Ethernet for that matter) is so far into the edge situation that it really doesn't matter how good or bad it works ..


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> 240 streams? perhaps a round-robin of 16 streams with 16 DVRs (yeah, not possible, but still) .. @ 20Mb/s * 16 streams, that's 320 Mb/s ..
> 
> A "full" DVR slate would be 8, 16 is possible @ 1 tuner per device (no BB connectivity w/16). So it is breakable, but you're talking about an uber extreme that would limit you in other ways.
> 
> Practically, 8 DVRs .. round-robin streaming A -> B, B-> C, C -> D ... H -> A would yield 8 streams .. even @ 20Mb/s (extremely rare), that maxes out @ 160Mb/s


There is no round robin, it's full mesh topology. bandwidth is "allocated" between 2 hosts at a time. This is essentially time triggered ethernet built into some unused frequency ranges over the coax.

Without doing the math, imagine this.

1s worth of data is 175Mb.

Divide that into X # of pieces with a precise time period. Say 10ms worth, or 1.75Mb. So you have 100 of these slices you can divvy out. That's the job of the scheduler which basically tells each host which of those 100 pieces he has to listen to and which he has to send on. All of this is synced purely against the clock, no need to read headers ,etc. It's simply "I was told to read at time offset X 1.75Mb of data". At time offset Y I can send 1.7Mb of data.

This is why no buffer is needed and latency is so low and things are guaranteed. It has to be what we need because the network controller scheduler guaranteed it.

You also have some special 'admin' packets that set all this up, add new nodes, etc. Basically node A requests to talk to node B and needs X amount of bandwidth. The control node looks at all the available open space and sends out the scheduling info to node A and B.

Note, these numbers are made up to make math simple. Each 'packet' is probably ~1500 bytes so for a 10Mb/s stream you'd have a ton of packets per second with them fairly evenly distributed, again so you don't need to buffer any more than the deadspace between two of your packets.

As an analogy, compare standard ethernet to a standard OS, and this to a real time OS. Not nearly as flexible, but for what it is speced to do guaranteed to service what it needs.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Oh, and just for a point of note .. why in the world would 8 people be purposefully streaming from the next DVR over? Statistically, if there are 8 people watching each of these DVRs (a necessity for this to be a real world situation), those 8 people would record things on their local DVR rather than their neighbors DVR.
> 
> If you ask me, 6, 7 or 8 simultaneous streams on DECA (or Ethernet for that matter) is so far into the edge situation that it really doesn't matter how good or bad it works ..


That's why I said 'not plausible'. Moca/Deca sacrifices plenty to ensure high reliability and low latency. But in the end it doesn't matter as in real life we won't run up against those issues.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Oh, and just for a point of note .. why in the world would 8 people be purposefully streaming from the next DVR over?


HR34s create a situation where most are streaming purposely.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> HR34s create a situation where most are streaming purposely.


You're making an incorrect assumption Re: HR34 .. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## webcrawlr (Sep 1, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> There is a similarity to token ring, but (1) it's not a ring, it's a bus and (2) if a unit drops out (cut wire, whatever), it only affects that unit and not the entire system.


Fine, split hairs. Token Bus. Good read either way.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sunking said:


> There is no round robin, it's full mesh topology. bandwidth is "allocated" between 2 hosts at a time. This is essentially time triggered ethernet built into some unused frequency ranges over the coax.


Let me be clear on this .. When I used the term "round robin" I wasn't referring to any networking protocol or terminology, so sorry about that.

I was referring to each DVR talking to it's neighbor .. in a loop fashion. This would be how to make each DVR play it's maximum of 1 stream at a time.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> The way you say it is disingenuous to the discussion.


Disingenous is:
Asserting that you can realize anywhere near 170Mbps of throughput from a DECA system with multiple MRV clients
Insisting that it must be sufficient because that's what DIRECTV is offering
Knowing that other TDMA technologies like Wi-fi and cable modems suffer performance hits exponentially with the addition of clients, insisting that many of the same overheads can't possibly apply to DECA.
Assuming that DIRECTV subscribers have no interest in networking anything in their home entertainment systems other than their DIRECTV equipment.
That residential LANs are predominantly built around Ethernet hubs (my personal favorite)

At one point, VOS determined that MRV peaks out at about 12Mbps (Tomcat suggested up to 13.5 for OTA HD).

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1860593&postcount=4

If you run that up to 4xFF (as would not be extraordinary for a OTA network TV recording during 33% of the show), it would suggest that you're pushing "up to" 48Mbps for a single session. That one activity would appear to take up about 28% of the theoretical maximum available bandwidth.

Remembering that you still have to leave room for beacons and unpredictable trick play command traffic, the band may be 30% consumed by this one session plus overhead.

Surely there aren't many situations where three or more sessions are going to be slipping through OTA HD programming at the same time but it does suggest that "abundance" is not an appropriate description to use in the context.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Do you get pixelation using Cat 5 for video? If not wouldn't it be easier to have one central dvr server in the basement and then have ethernet cords running to each room? That way you could hook the DTV server to any device that has an ethernet connection to DTV no coax input needed.

I know the new SWIM system uses the existing cabling in the house but how does that connect it? Would the installer just unhook the cable wire that is coming into the cable outlet and hook the DTV wire up to the cable outlet and leave the cable wire dangling inside the wall?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> If you run that up to 4xFF (as would not be extraordinary for a OTA network TV recording during 33% of the show), it would suggest that you're pushing "up to" 48Mbps for a single session. That one activity would appear to take up about 28% of the theoretical maximum available bandwidth.


Again, you don't know what you're talking about. FFW doesn't push up the throughput of the system in an algebraic multiple - it uses the keyframes in the MPEG data stream. :nono:

But then *AGAIN*, maybe if you actually used this stuff everyday under real-world conditions (*) you wouldn't have to talk out of the end of your alimentary canal over and over again.

7 receivers, 16 tuners, all using DECA every single day with 5 real human users age 13 and up. No issues whatsoever.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

harsh said:


> Disingenous is:
> Asserting that you can realize anywhere near 170Mbps of throughput from a DECA system with multiple MRV clients
> Insisting that it must be sufficient because that's what DIRECTV is offering
> Knowing that other TDMA technologies like Wi-fi and cable modems suffer performance hits exponentially with the addition of clients, insisting that many of the same overheads can't possibly apply to DECA.
> ...


I believe you don't understand how trick play works in a system like this. Unlike standard ethernet, network throughput and latency (< 3ms) are guaranteed. There is no need to push more or less data. This means in less than 10ms you can receive a request to FF, calculate what that means, and send that data back. There's no buffer, no waiting, no need to send any more data than is required between the next frame which is only a few ms behind. If you were to record the 'stream' it may not make sense as if you are in 2xFF you'll see the same number of frames, but only every other. not twice the frames twice as fast.

This is why all traffic is scheduled by a single control.

edit: lamelefty has a better understanding of mpeg4 encoding that I wanted to try to explain. So refer partly to his for the video aspect of it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> 7 receivers, 16 tuners, all using DECA every single day with 5 real human users age 13 and up. No issues whatsoever.


Exactly .. Real world use for the past year has pretty much laid to rest any real concerns of DECA .. The low latency and guaranteed bandwidth (within the limitation of devices) provides excellent connectivity. The only time we have seen any issues posted is when things weren't configured properly - and even those posts are in short supply.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. FFW doesn't push up the throughput of the system in an algebraic multiple - it uses the keyframes in the MPEG data stream. :nono:


Regardless of what the DVR displays, I'm pretty sure that the server isn't parsing out and sending just the keyframes. I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that the server can't do much in the way of creating a modified video stream for the client.

Given the somewhat random and often distantly placed nature of MPEG4 keyframes, I'm kind of dubious that what you suggest is done locally, much less in an MRV session. It would seem to create a series of frames that weren't equally spaced (the resultant video would race and slow based on the highly variable keyframe density).


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Regardless of what the DVR displays, I'm pretty sure that the server isn't parsing out and sending just the keyframes. I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that the server can't do much in the way of creating a modified video stream for the client.
> 
> Given the somewhat random and often distantly placed nature of MPEG4 keyframes, I'm kind of dubious that what you suggest is done locally, much less in an MRV session. It would seem to create a series of frames that weren't equally spaced (the resultant video would race and slow based on the highly variable keyframe density).


You can be as "dubious" as you like. If you actually used Directv MRV and DECA, then you might actually KNOW it works in the real-world. And if you'd actually read what VOS (among others) has posted over the years, again, you'd KNOW that MPEG trickplay streams are not algebraic multiples based on FFW rate selected.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Given the somewhat random and often distantly placed nature of MPEG4 keyframes, I'm kind of dubious that what you suggest is done locally, much less in an MRV session. It would seem to create a series of frames that weren't equally spaced (the resultant video would race and slow based on the highly variable keyframe density).


I think it's clear to everyone that uses an MPEG4 receiver that FF/REW is more choppy on MPEG4 channels than on MPEG2 channels. There is a reason for that .. and it has a lot to do with these keyframe (or I-frames) that allow you to get bits and pieces at a time. I'm pretty sure a seek and read is used both locally and remotely rather than a read everything and display every once in a while. There's no reason to read every single frame from the disk when you only need every 15th or 30th or 60th frame.

If you were only showing every 60th frame (for example), that would be one frame over 2 seconds of real time. Why would it be faster (or better) to read 60 frames and display one rather than reading and displaying every 60th frame? The answer is "It wouldn't." The I-frames provide the necessary synchronization, so those of course would need to be read, but every video frame would not need to be read. As a result, there simply is no way that there is a 48Mb/s flying across the network as you claim. Your just making stuff up now.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

The mpeg4 spec specifies a maximum of 132 P frames between an I frame. Directv handles the encoding so there is nothing random about it for them. Undoubtedly they have reduced the number of P frames in order to increase usability. Sacrificing a little bit of satellite bandwidth for dvr usability.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

sunking said:


> The mpeg4 spec specifies a maximum of 132 P frames between an I frame. Directv handles the encoding so there is nothing random about it for them. Undoubtedly they have reduced the number of P frames in order to increase usability. Sacrificing a little bit of satellite bandwidth for dvr usability.


As a tangent, I recall from some of the original 2007 HBO/Directv press releases regarding MPEG4 HD content of the HBO suite of channels, HBO touted that they were going to all-MPEG4 distribution at a certain minimum bitrate - part of any delay that eventually arose in actually adding those channels to Directv's lineup might have had something to do with technical encoding things like that. I know there were LOTS of teething problems with MPEG4 HD originally - "brrrips" (audible and visual macroblocking and artifacting), trickplay functionality, etc. The Discovery Communications channels were frequently affected by such glitches for awhile, as were the 1080i locals in my market, which were simply terrible at times, especially when delivering national primetime programming. I heard rumors from the usual semi-reliable sources that a lot of effort was made to upgrade, improve and/or replace a LOT of encoding hardware to smooth out a lot of these glitches.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

harsh said:


> Regardless of what the DVR displays, I'm pretty sure that the server isn't parsing out and sending just the keyframes. I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that the server can't do much in the way of creating a modified video stream for the client.
> 
> Given the somewhat random and often distantly placed nature of MPEG4 keyframes, I'm kind of dubious that what you suggest is done locally, much less in an MRV session. It would seem to create a series of frames that weren't equally spaced (the resultant video would race and slow based on the highly variable keyframe density).


what random ones have you experienced?


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> what random ones have you experienced?


!rolling


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm pretty sure a seek and read is used both locally and remotely rather than a read everything and display every once in a while. There's no reason to read every single frame from the disk when you only need every 15th or 30th or 60th frame.


Once you get your head around the idea that the server has absolutely no way of decoding and parsing out individual frames and then sending them out as recoded clips, it will become clear that the server is serving up a stream, not a series of frames.

Clearly you only need every few frames but MPEG-4 doesn't dish up video that way (unless you insert keyframes every few frames; taking away the advantage to using MPEG-4).

MPEG-4 keyframes in longer programs usually come at a rate of one every few seconds so it may be 120-500 or more frames between keyframes to get real value out of MPEG-4. For comparison, MPEG-2 typically uses a keyframe every half second (15 frames) and if you set MPEG-4 for a keyframe every half second, the compression wouldn't be a whole lot better than MPEG-2.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

I think you will find that the norm is in fact every 15 frames. I'm not really sure why you bring up "longer programs" as this is streamed data so total length/duration is irrelevant.

The only reason you would really care about increasing that to a few seconds is if you currently have room for 5000 pirated movies on your disk drive and want to fit 5001. Yes, that's tongue in cheek ...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Thus far, the maximum number I've heard of was six sessions.Tell me how you've personally conducted testing of seven simultaneous sessions. Your system would appear to be good for up to four. Absent widely accessible tools for measuring overall throughput on the cloud, few can do more than speculate.
> 
> I explained my reasoning in my post. If it was too long or the words were too big, I'll summarize: fast forwarding requires a much higher data rate than normal playback. A higher rate demands more bandwidth. Slip requires fast forwarding and skip ostensibly doesn't.


This is why you aren't a real source for people with questions about Directv, how it works, and what it is capable of, telling me my system is only capable of using 4 streams at a time.. !rolling

I'd love to know why you think that, since you obviously know nothing of my system and its capabilities, much less that of DirecTV's... Let me try and enlighten you to reality...

I did a test ages ago right after I went full DECA. I had 7 dvr's and what I did was simple.. I went to all of them, and selected 2 shows to record for all of them off sat, then had each one work on downloading several VOD items from the internet (it only downloads one show at a time), then I went to unit 2, and selected something stored on unit 1 and hit play. Then I went to unit 3 and selected something on unit 2 to play and hit play. I did this till I was selecting something on unit 7 to play on unit 1 and had all servers streaming a program to a client.

Pretty simple to do. And guess what, everything worked just fine... 

My real world experience completely discounts your wild guesses on how deca and Directv work.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Disingenous is:
> Asserting that you can realize anywhere near 170Mbps of throughput from a DECA system with multiple MRV clients
> Insisting that it must be sufficient because that's what DIRECTV is offering
> Knowing that other TDMA technologies like Wi-fi and cable modems suffer performance hits exponentially with the addition of clients, insisting that many of the same overheads can't possibly apply to DECA.
> ...


!rolling
!rolling
!rolling



harsh said:


> Regardless of what the DVR displays, I'm pretty sure that the server isn't parsing out and sending just the keyframes. I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that the server can't do much in the way of creating a modified video stream for the client.
> 
> Given the somewhat random and often distantly placed nature of MPEG4 keyframes, I'm kind of dubious that what you suggest is done locally, much less in an MRV session. It would seem to create a series of frames that weren't equally spaced (the resultant video would race and slow based on the highly variable keyframe density).


!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling



harsh said:


> Once you get your head around the idea that the server has absolutely no way of decoding and parsing out individual frames and then sending them out as recoded clips, it will become clear that the server is serving up a stream, not a series of frames.
> 
> Clearly you only need every few frames but MPEG-4 doesn't dish up video that way (unless you insert keyframes every few frames; taking away the advantage to using MPEG-4).
> 
> MPEG-4 keyframes in longer programs usually come at a rate of one every few seconds so it may be 120-500 or more frames between keyframes to get real value out of MPEG-4. For comparison, MPEG-2 typically uses a keyframe every half second (15 frames) and if you set MPEG-4 for a keyframe every half second, the compression wouldn't be a whole lot better than MPEG-2.


!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling
!rolling

So let me get this strait, you actually don't understand anything with how MRV on Directv works, especially when it comes to trickplay, right? Again, let me try and enlighten you.

REPLAYTV which had MRV before anyone else didn't even do FFWD the way you suggest they do it. It would be so stupid to program that way. Every compression scheme on the planet is used to minimize what is sent form one unit to another, and mrv is no different in the desire to not waste bandwidth. ( I know they don't have anything to do with each other, but the point is that the concept of moving content from one place to another while using the least amount of bandwidth necessary is the same) They aren't going to waste bandwidth when there is no need to... The server only sends what is needed to the client. Period. It doesn't send all frames and then expect the client to figure out which to dump. It sends frames based on what the client is asking for. If its in FFWD mode, then its only asking for every 4th frame (example could be more or less), or so, and when its in regular play mode, it sends every frame. The rate at which it sends info stays the same, but the the info that the server serves up can be altered easily on the fly... It can't buffer either.. A client doesn't even do slow mo, or pause! Your way of thinking would suggest that the client when asking for slow mo would have to have the server just keep sending stuff in real time, and maybe pause at some point for the client to catch back up, which you have to agree is a ludicrous theory!

Want proof.. Go to your H2X and hit slow mo or pause.. And guess what unit is controlling what is being sent to your client based on the commands the client is receiving from the remote control? Oh wait.. !rolling


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> The server only sends what is needed to the client. Period. It doesn't send all frames and then expect the client to figure out which to dump. It sends frames based on what the client is asking for.


In order for the server to work in the way you describe, it would have to actually decode the video. Since the HR2x doesn't have the hosepower to do so, it's technically impossible for the MRV server to work this way.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

So the only way the dvr can read the frames and markers is if it decodes and translates the frames to video first? 

I know it doesn't work the way harsh describes... So please, do tell... I was trying to generalize the way I understood it to work in very laminas terms... I know the server doesn't actually decode the stream, but I was under the impression it could read the markers in the stream... And choses what to send based that... It'd still get there encrypted.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> In order for the server to work in the way you describe, it would have to actually decode the video. Since the HR2x doesn't have the hosepower to do so, it's technically impossible for the MRV server to work this way.


Simply wrong on so many levels. All it needs to be able to do is understand the stream and be able to read frame types from the header information. There is no decoding of the actual frame needed.

And even if it did, it's not really a big deal because there is hardware in them that does it. They don't need a lot of horsepower. Or do you believe that it is your TV that is decoding the streams and not your receiver? The receivers don't even break a sweat in decoding.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sunking said:


> Simply wrong on so many levels. All it needs to be able to do is understand the stream and be able to read frame types from the header information. There is no decoding of the actual frame needed.


Methinks you've overlooked that the stream data is encrypted. It would have to be some pretty special encryption indeed to still be able to parse frame headers from the encrypted file.

As for your hardware decoding assertion, I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that the hardware is capable of decoding multiple streams "simultaneously". IIRC, this is one of the reasons why PIP isn't physically possible in most (if not all) of the HR2x models.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Methinks you've overlooked that the stream data is encrypted. It would have to be some pretty special encryption indeed to still be able to parse frame headers from the encrypted file.
> 
> As for your hardware decoding assertion, I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that the hardware is capable of decoding multiple streams "simultaneously". IIRC, this is one of the reasons why PIP isn't physically possible in most (if not all) of the HR2x models.


This is wrong on SO many levels. :nono:

First of all, "the stream" consists of many different elements. And each box has dedicated hardware to decode those elements of it which are encrypted in real-time. All this stuff is proprietary and runs the risk of DMCA smackdowns to get very detailed, but clearly decoding "the stream" is NOT the slowdown in the HR2x architecture.

Second, PIP has NOTHING to do with how many streams of digital data may or may not be decoded simultaneously. PIP has to do with post-processing of the video data and compositing it for display on a monitor. That is a function of the video display hardware, not the data decryption systems.

So now that you're demonstrably wrong AGAIN, why don't you just stop wasting everyone's time here?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Well...

First off, there are a lot of people who are posting a lot of right things and a lot of nearly right things. And many of those posts also have some wrong or somewhat wrong things. 

Second off, I'm not exactly sure of a number of things, I'll detail them farther down.

Thirdly, we all know many of these questions can be answered by reading some specs.  (Albeit some specs might be tricky to obtain without using some shekels...)

Now some very important things:

There are many layers of decoding going on. Including at least one layer of decrypting that for this discussion I suggest we just consider that another decoding step.

There is also at least one layer of encoding (again, it's actually an encrypting event.)

MPEG2 is darn near trivial to decode into a video output. Trickplay for MPEG2 is correspondingly ridiculously easy. 

MPEG2 has no requirement to buffer the data before the video is output. All the data arrives in the order it is used and builds completely on previously arrived data or is a full frame of video data.

MPEG4 CABAC (the form used by DIRECTV) is orders of magnitude harder to decode into the final video output. There are video features for object movement that aren't present in MPEG2 for instance.

MPEG4 CABAC requires the decoder to buffer data as data for video frames does not all appear in order nor at once. (combined, these two statements make trickplay very difficult without some heavy duty gpu help.)

But...
MPEG4 doesn't need full decoding to do some trickplay from the server. As has been mentioned, one approach would be to grab just the I-Frames and forward them. They are identified by looking at the header. 

Another approach is to skip ahead in the data and start sending new data, let the client do the figuring out if enough data has been skipped. 

We can be fairly certain the server decrypts the data before it sends it. And that it re-encrypts it for DTCP-IP.

Beyond this, I don't know if the Specs require the server to always start at I-frames, just send more data faster, or what.

Also how do the specs handle seek to a point? Does the server send a lot of data to rebuild the client buffer, does the server ask the client what it wants, does the buffer rebuild over time rather than all at once?

All this then feeds back into the original question: which is better for video transmission, MoCA or Ethernet? 

Then, on top of that, we have the question about the real world. Even if MoCA is not better than ideal Ethernet, how does it perform against real world Ethernet switches, some of which can be pretty crappy and jittery...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Is this like the Chevy Vs Ford Vs Dodge debate? Or out serviced equines?

Both implementations have their strengths and weaknesses but end of the day for all but a minute portion of the subscriber base Direct hit it out of the park with their "one size fits all" implementation. Really fits nearly 100% of their subscribers and is fully supportable.

The big advantage I see to Ethernet is it's scalability which as was noted prior is a limited scope by design for DECA. It's most likely that to engineer devices to scale beyond their existing cloud boundaries is not a cost justified development effort for the minute percentage of subscribers that could actually leverage it.

I'm not sure why we keep arguing which technology is better, both work, both work well (given a solid hardwired LAN infrastructure for non DECA). There really is only 2 reasons to choose Ethernet over DECA.

1. You have the LAN in place and don't mind troubleshooting.

2. You have the LAN in place AND your infrastructure exceeds 16 tuners and or has exceptionally long cable runs.

Other than reason #2 *for the purposes of Direct TV's WHDVR streaming, the 2 implementations are indistinguishable* to the subscribers eyes and ears. Which one runs faster, jumps higher, slices and dices, etc is moot.

DECA is not for everybody but pretty darn near.

Don "Horse no move Kimmosabbe, we take car to next episode" Bolton


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> I'm not sure why we keep arguing which technology is better


I'll give you a clue: it starts and ends with an h.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I'll give you a clue: it starts and ends with an h.


:lol:


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Horseradish?
Horse flesh?
Horse death?

:sure::sure::sure:

:grin:

Don "I remember a tech article 10 years back where in one test carrier pigeons actually beat Ethernet" Bolton



Jeremy W said:


> I'll give you a clue: it starts and ends with an h.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> We can be fairly certain the server decrypts the data before it sends it. And that it re-encrypts it for DTCP-IP.


Can we? Is the data really re-encrypted or is it just decrypted on the client using the key from the server?

Has it been determined that the I-frame rate is fast enough that you don't have to wait seconds for them to come along in the stream? Loading up the stream with I-frames certainly cuts into the amount of useful data that can be carried. Given the interdependence between the I-frames (keyframes), P-frames (predictive frames) and B-frames (bi-predictive frames), it is clear that you can't start decoding without at least the lead-off I-frame. If those frames are seconds apart, it won't make for a very smooth fast forward, much less a reverse.

The point of this thread is to determine what the real-world loading of the network might be and how it is impacted by common trick play operations. From there we can figure out whether the maximum load might exceed the capacity of the TDMA scheme.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

We know for a fact that if you move the a HDD from one one system to another that it will no longer decrypt .. How exactly would the client be able to do the decryption of data stored on the server? The answer is "it can't."

Consider that encrypting/decrypting data is not taxing on the CPU .. re-encoding is .. but re-encrypting is not. While facts are not really available (we don't have access to DIRECTV's inner workings), Tom's assertion seems very sound to me.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> Can we? Is the data really re-encrypted or is it just decrypted on the client using the key from the server?


The VideoGuard encryption is stripped off, and DTCP-IP encryption is applied. I have personally verified this.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> The VideoGuard encryption is stripped off, and DTCP-IP encryption is applied. I have personally verified this.


It seems well established that the stream is keyed to the DVR prior to being written to the disc. Is it both broadcast with VideoGuard and stored with a re-hashed VideoGuard or is it possible that it is stored with DTCP-IP?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> We know for a fact that if you move the a HDD from one one system to another that it will no longer decrypt .. How exactly would the client be able to do the decryption of data stored on the server? The answer is "it can't."


The answer is that it can using a common key that both devices know. Whether you believe the key used to encrypt the data comes from the client or the server, both devices must be able to deal with a common key in order to encrypt (server) and decrypt (client) the stream.

As an example, DISH Network encrypts the content of USB archive drives using what is called a "household key". Each ViP DVR on the account knows the key and can decrypt existing files and/or encrypt to add additional files to the drive.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The answer is that it can using a common key that both devices know. Whether you believe the key used to encrypt the data comes from the client or the server, both devices must be able to deal with a common key in order to encrypt (server) and decrypt (client) the stream.


of course it COULD .. but that's not what it does. There is no common key for the house which (as I noted) is why you can't move an external HDD from one system to another and have it work.



> As an example, DISH Network encrypts the content of USB archive drives using what is called a "household key". Each ViP DVR on the account knows the key and can decrypt existing files and/or encrypt to add additional files to the drive.


OK, great .. so DISH uses a common key. DIRECTV doesn't .. folks would like that for "replacement" reasons, but that's not the way it works. Is talking about what COULD be done your subtle way to move away from Tom's assertion rather than simply admitting that he's probably right?


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I can see the ad now:

Dish Network features Sneakernet MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Actually, they do feature sneakernet MRV .. Although I think there may be a fee for that.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> It seems well established that the stream is keyed to the DVR prior to being written to the disc. Is it both broadcast with VideoGuard and stored with a re-hashed VideoGuard or is it possible that it is stored with DTCP-IP?


DTCP-IP is not designed for storage, only transmission.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> It seems well established that the stream is keyed to the DVR prior to being written to the disc. Is it both broadcast with VideoGuard and stored with a re-hashed VideoGuard or is it possible that it is stored with DTCP-IP?


While I'm pretty sure DTCP-IP can't be used for storage, I do know for a fact that the DTCP-IP keys for streaming are established as part of the protocol to make the connection, validate the client as acceptable, and prepare DTCP-IP. So if it is stored with a key, it would need to be stripped off anyway as there is no guarantee the client is DIRECTV MRV.

While we have been discussing this as MRV to MRV, it really isn't. It is DLNA streaming to DLNA streaming with a few bits of proprietary stuff on top--which really doesn't affect the DECA versus Ethernet discussion.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room... But only has coax jacks in the family room, office, master bedroom, and kitchen. For that reason, I'd prefer an ethernet setup. In an ideal world, the HR-34 would be out now, and I could just mount it in the basement next to the Cat5e junction box... Then I could buy a Samsung UNxxd6400 and plug it in to a Cat5e jack in any room in my house... One can only dream!


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

"jasonblair" said:


> My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room... But only has coax jacks in the family room, office, master bedroom, and kitchen. For that reason, I'd prefer an ethernet setup. In an ideal world, the HR-34 would be out now, and I could just mount it in the basement next to the Cat5e junction box... Then I could buy a Samsung UNxxd6400 and plug it in to a Cat5e jack in any room in my house... One can only dream!


+1


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Is talking about what COULD be done your subtle way to move away from Tom's assertion rather than simply admitting that he's probably right?


The discussion remains about bandwidth requirements. Re-encrytion may prove that the server must decrypt the stream before sending it; allowing it the opportunity to parse an unencrypted stream. Whether it has the horsepower to do that remains a question.

This still doesn't answer the question of whether the I-frame frequency is sufficient to afford a smooth and evenly paced fast forward as the only way to insure that is to have access to frames that are evenly spaced time-wise regardless of whether the I-frames are evenly or closely enough spaced.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room... But only has coax jacks in the family room, office, master bedroom, and kitchen. For that reason, I'd prefer an ethernet setup.


That DIRECTV's current set-top MRV clients must be coax connected to be authorized to function is the problem. It doesn't have anything to do with DECA per se. If you didn't have to authorize an H2x via satellite, it probably could work as a WHDS client via Ethernet.

At this point, it appears that all of the RVU capable TVs are going to be using Ethernet ultimately so it is just a matter of time. The only question in my mind is whether the C30 will have an Ethernet port on it in the event that you don't find a suitable RVU TV. That the C30 isn't passing Energy Star requirements may lead to a re-thinking of the connection strategy if they can't prevail upon the EPA to give them a pass.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The discussion remains about bandwidth requirements. Re-encrytion may prove that the server must decrypt the stream before sending it; allowing it the opportunity to parse an unencrypted stream. Whether it has the horsepower to do that remains a question.
> 
> This still doesn't answer the question of whether the I-frame frequency is sufficient to afford a smooth and evenly paced fast forward as the only way to insure that is to have access to frames that are evenly spaced time-wise regardless of whether the I-frames are evenly or closely enough spaced.


I've asked .. not sure if I will get an answer, but really, this is an easily tested event for some people. I don't have an easy way to do it because of the equipment that I have, but someone with a full Internet setup (smart switch) could easily monitor a standard MRV data rate and then monitor that same rate when using 1x, 2x, 3x and 4x FF.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> That the C30 isn't passing Energy Star requirements may lead to a re-thinking of the connection strategy if they can't prevail upon the EPA to give them a pass.


You just cited a presentation that's over a year old in order to bash DirecTV. :nono2:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> You just cited a presentation that's over a year old in order to bash DirecTV. :nono2:


harsh seems to think that DIRECTV can't make adjustments to a product before it is released. He still cites the 2005 (or is it 2006?) HMC as the same thing as HR34.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> harsh seems to think that DIRECTV can't make adjustments to a product before it is released. He still cites the 2005 (or is it 2006?) HMC as the same thing as HR34.


Of course. Everyone knows that the very first development iteration of a product is the one that must be released. That's how product development works.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jeremy W said:
 

> You just cited a presentation that's over a year old in order to bash DirecTV. :nono2:


I'm noting a shortcoming of MoCA and, by extension, DECA. Of course DISH's inclusion of HomePlug hasn't helped their power consumption either.

It is hard to imagine that the C30, as a designation, has been around for more than a year.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is hard to imagine that the C30, as a designation, has been around for more than a year.


Well the date on that presentation is 13 May 2010, so it has.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is hard to imagine that the C30, as a designation, has been around for more than a year.


Check out the report from this post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171288

Pg. 8 of the PDF .. although at the time it was "Un-named Client" according to the caption. The fact is that no one opened the little door on the front right to see the actual name.

Those photos are from January 2010.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm noting a shortcoming of MoCA and, by extension, DECA. Of course DISH's inclusion of HomePlug hasn't helped their power consumption either.
> 
> It is hard to imagine that the C30, as a designation, has been around for more than a year.


It's hard to imagine (or believe) anything in your strawman argument. :nono2:


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room... But only has coax jacks in the family room, office, master bedroom, and kitchen. For that reason, I'd prefer an ethernet setup. In an ideal world, the HR-34 would be out now, and I could just mount it in the basement next to the Cat5e junction box... Then I could buy a Samsung UNxxd6400 and plug it in to a Cat5e jack in any room in my house... One can only dream!





Kevin F said:


> +1


Yeah, I have my 6 receivers (4 HR24s, 2 HR21s) all connected via cat6 with multiple gigaswitches. Has worked flawlessly...


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

VARTV said:


> Yeah, I have my 6 receivers (4 HR24s, 2 HR21s) all connected via cat6 with multiple gigaswitches. Has worked flawlessly...


I have 6 connected as well. I used to have some router problems by thanks to the good people at dbstalk I was able to change some IP addresses and now the router works just fine. MRV has always been perfect and seamless. I use Cat-5 and my switch is not a gigaswitch so that doesn't matter.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

It hasn't always been perfect if you needed to make some changes to get it to work.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> It hasn't always been perfect if you needed to make some changes to get it to work.


Which means that for its purpose of networking a reasonable number of Directv receivers with the least amount of fuss or difficulty for the user and the installers involved, DECA wins. Period.


----------



## ricochet (Aug 21, 2006)

harsh said:


> If you run that up to 4xFF (as would not be extraordinary for a OTA network TV recording during 33% of the show), it would suggest that you're pushing "up to" 48Mbps for a single session. That one activity would appear to take up about 28% of the theoretical maximum available bandwidth.


You of course realize that 4xFF is actually close to 100x the regular playback speed?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> ...My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room...


I've seen this argument a number of times, and I just don't understand it. Why do folks care so much what medium is used? And if you really do care, then use ethernet. DECA can easily be "switched over" to ethernet by using a DECA dongle. From there, you can use your ethernet infrastructure to your heart's content.

There are numerous ways that computer hardware/software interfaces with a NIC, but I don't see the same argument there. Folks seem to care about the transmission medium from NIC to NIC, but not the NIC to computer interface....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> I've seen this argument a number of times, and I just don't understand it. Why do folks care so much what medium is used?


You took that quote totally out of context. It makes perfect sense if you include the whole thing.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> My big complaint with DECA is the house I just bought has Cat5e jacks in every single room... But only has coax jacks in the family room, office, master bedroom, and kitchen. For that reason, I'd prefer an ethernet setup. In an ideal world, the HR-34 would be out now, and I could just mount it in the basement next to the Cat5e junction box... Then I could buy a Samsung UNxxd6400 and plug it in to a Cat5e jack in any room in my house... One can only dream!





Jeremy W said:


> You took that quote totally out of context. It makes perfect sense if you include the whole thing.


What am I missing? A DECA dongle would take care of the transition from coax to Cat5e. I don't understand the complaint with DECA in that situation.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> What am I missing? A DECA dongle would take care of the transition from coax to Cat5e.


He was referring to the fact that he only has coax in a few rooms, while he has Ethernet in every room, and all current DirecTV STBs require a coax connection.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> He was referring to the fact that he only has coax in a few rooms, while he has Ethernet in every room, and all current DirecTV STBs require a coax connection.


Maybe you're right; I guess the poster would have to chime in to clarify. I was going off of the "My big complaint with DECA..." statement. Since having to run coax for a receiver (to see the sat) has nothing to do with DECA, I don't know why it would have been phrased the way it was.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Since having to run coax for a receiver (to see the sat) has nothing to do with DECA, I don't know why it would have been phrased the way it was.


Having to run coax has everything to do with DECA, since it runs over coax...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> Having to run coax has everything to do with DECA, since it runs over coax...


My overall point was that a DECA dongle can be used to feed a signal to areas that are ethernet only for future gen receivers. D*'s current receivers require coax for sat, so yes; the poster would need to have coax for a receiver in a room. Connectivity at that point could be DECA or ethernet. In the case of the HR34 the connectivity hasn't been officially announced. In theory it could be a hybrid of coax and ethernet, with a DECA dongle being used to connect the rooms that were ethernet only.

In any case I don't think his "complaint" is so much with DECA.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> In any case I don't think his "complaint" is so much with DECA.


You're probably correct, it's more of a complaint against any sort of strict DECA-only standard in the future.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I think an HR34 server with Ethernet connected Samsung RVU TVs would be a great choice for Jason. Availability is the issue.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> You're probably correct, it's more of a complaint against any sort of strict DECA-only standard in the future.


Yep, now that I would understand


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> It hasn't always been perfect if you needed to make some changes to get it to work.


Didn't have to make any changes to get MRV to work, only the internet connection which I actually don't use but just wanted to know that I could.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Lets look at some real world data...perhaps we could even call them facts.

Real world, every TV location has or will have an RG6 cable. Ethernet is becomming more common, but still rare. Nearly non-existant in older homes. So, point for DECA.

Installation of RG6 is easier than cat5/6. Point for DECA.

Normal RG6 is rated for exterior use, where most retrofit cabling is done. Cat5/6 not so much. Point for DECA.

DECA does not require any 3rd party network gear. Cat5/6 does. Point for DECA.

So at this point is 4 - 0 in favor of DECA in REAL WORLD observations.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Lets look at some real world data...perhaps we could even call them facts.
> 
> Real world, every TV location has or will have an RG6 cable. Ethernet is becomming more common, but still rare. Nearly non-existant in older homes. So, point for DECA.
> 
> ...


Reality, what a concept. 

The fact is you are correct. DECA will fit every install where as any other networking scheme will not. It's the one inescapable fact that no matter how old or new the home, and if it can have DirecTV, then the standard install is all the cabling necessary for MRV. No additional work, no having to figure out dozens of different pieces networking hardware, just put a DECA adapter and you're good to go (unnecessary for Hx24s/H25s).

It really is the best solution. Even for me with my own network and having all my receivers connected via Ethernet. Then I went to DECA and got rid of four Ethernet cables and a switch.

Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Lets look at some real world data...perhaps we could even call them facts.
> 
> Real world, every TV location has or will have an RG6 cable. Ethernet is becomming more common, but still rare. Nearly non-existant in older homes. So, point for DECA.
> 
> ...


Can I deduct a couple of bits?
1/4 point: RG6 is not already in every home. If you add in RG59, the number of homes does approaches a very high percentage.

1/2 point: these are really from DIRECTV (cable, Dish, etc.) point of view. Just seems like a small deduction is appropriate.

Now some other points to be awarded:
Consistent jitter/qos characteristics (-1/2point ethernet, +1/2 point DECA) 

0% of TVs have DECA right now. (Or nearly so.) Point Ethernet

So I come up with 3.75 to .5. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RobertE said:


> It's hard to imagine (or believe) anything in your strawman argument. :nono2:


Stunning.

Attack without indication of what you''re attacking.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RobertE said:


> Real world, every TV location has or will have an RG6 cable.


As IPTV becomes more popular and the price gap more critical, this may or may not continue. None of the Roku boxes or Apple TVs need coax. No widely distributed consumer devices outside of DIRECTV receivers support DECA. Finally, coax is absolutely lousy for portable devices (not necessarily handhelds or portable computers)


> Ethernet is becomming more common, but still rare. Nearly non-existant in older homes.


I bet Ethernet has better penetration than MoCA and DECA combined. Fishing Ethernet cable is often a lot easier and one drop can serve a large number of varied clients.


> So, point for DECA.


If you believe the party line. Otherwise, this is mostly a point for technologies that don't employ coax.


> Installation of RG6 is easier than cat5/6. Point for DECA.


I find Ethernet more forgiving (especially related to its diameter and flexibility) and easier to verify but you're the professional. I would point out that those new nearly flat Ethernet cables are way cool for hidden runs indoors.


> Normal RG6 is rated for exterior use, where most retrofit cabling is done. Cat5/6 not so much. Point for DECA.


Agreed, but who wants exterior cabling other than the installers?


> DECA does not require any 3rd party network gear. Cat5/6 does. Point for DECA.


DECA doesn't have any third party network gear; that's a point against. Retrofitting DECA is decidedly expensive and has very limited application in terms of home networking in a world where home networking is verily exploding with IPTV and DLNA capable devices, gaming consoles and VOIP phones.

There are few, if any economies of scale to be had and sharing the connection with other devices in your home theater is decidedly discouraged. Point Ethernet.


> So at this point is 4 - 0 in favor of DECA in REAL WORLD observations.


I think it depends on the perspective you have and whether or not you feel the need to defend DIRECTV's choice. I'd call it a draw if I were being generous but my 50 and 85 year old houses are fully CAT5e wired to all rooms that don't have a sink or large, noisy appliance in them.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> As IPTV becomes more popular and the price gap more critical, this may or may not continue. None of the Roku boxes or Apple TVs need coax. No widely distributed consumer devices outside of DIRECTV receivers support DECA. Finally, coax is absolutely lousy for portable devices (not necessarily handhelds or portable computers)I bet Ethernet has better penetration than MoCA and DECA combined. Fishing Ethernet cable is often a lot easier and one drop can serve a large number of varied clients.
> 
> If you believe the party line. Otherwise, this is mostly a point for technologies that don't employ coax.
> 
> ...


All interesting and valid points but kind of irrelevant. One could _almost_ say you made a very good straw man argument by propping Ethernet/DLNA/IPTV/VOIP right up there without ever addressing the point made in post to which you replied.

That point being made is that if someone has or is ordering DirecTV it doesn't matter what's already in the home. DECA is the easiest and most reliable networking scheme for DirecTV receivers. DECA adapters may be a bit more expensive up front but it saves time on the install and potential support down the road...especially when the subs router goes and has to call DirecTV because his MRV isn't working after he replaced it.

All of which is the very point here. With one cable you get MRV, On Demand, etc. effectively, reliably, and with the easiest support path after the install. And yes, even with the marginally higher cost of the adapters; it is the most economical choice for DirecTV. Your reply, while interesting, puts up a bunch of stuff that doesn't dispute or even address any of these facts...unless your implication was that, as it relates to networking DirecTV receivers/DVRs, these other things are easier and more reliable to install and support. Is that what you're trying to say?

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LameLefty said:


> Which means that for its purpose of networking a reasonable number of Directv receivers with the least amount of fuss or difficulty for the user and the installers involved, DECA wins. Period.


I think this is likely the most significant point in this thread.

Delivery of a predicable, controlled, repeatable method for the Whole Home DVR Service (MRV) makes the most sense from a business, cost, and installation standpoint.

In addition, having operated with both environments over a decent period of time, and seeing the reliability and performance of DECA, it's indeed the no-brainer option you've stated.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> That point being made is that if someone has or is ordering DirecTV it doesn't matter what's already in the home. DECA is the easiest and most reliable networking scheme for DirecTV receivers. DECA adapters may be a bit more expensive up front but it saves time on the install and potential support down the road...especially when the subs router goes and has to call DirecTV because his MRV isn't working after he replaced it.


If the point is about what's best for DIRECTV, then DECA is a good fit. If the point is what is most generally useful for the customer, not so much.

Over time we've established that the failure rates for both are relatively low so if it comes down to DIRECTV offering a LAN segment that can only be practically used with DIRECTV equipment, that's not for the customer. DECA doesn't appear to be upgradeable nor is it particularly useful without DIRECTV service. It is somewhat like selling someone a truck and telling them you can only use it to carry goods from Costco.

From the standpoint of troubleshooting not involving a truck roll, the first recommendation seems to be making the IP addresses static (I'm not convinced that this has anything to do with anything) and DECA doesn't address that in any meaningful way. Bringing up problems with the router is a non-starter as the router is going to be as big a part of a DECA installation as it is with any other connection technology. Avoiding DHCP simply makes changing routers more likely to be a problem.

To the end of SWiM and DECA, DIRECTV has essentially said that they want to take over your coax and use it exclusively for their purposes and you need to forget about using it for your purposes. At least the coax is still usable in the event that DIRECTV is shown the door.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh, by implication in your post, you make it sound like its easier to install network cable than (1) wireless, which would be used in most of the application examples you noted and (2) coax which MUST be installed anyway. 

The latter would cost significantly more (mostly labor, some material) than just using what is there. Additionally it requires a decent router. Any one off the shelf isn't necessarily going to cut it. Your assertion that Ethernet is easier than coax on DIRECTV installs is absurd. 

That could change in the RVU world, but we aren't there yet. C30s are likely to have coax, sine DIRECTV techs will do the install. TVs will have Ethernet.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> If the point is about what's best for DIRECTV, then DECA is a good fit. If the point is what is most generally useful for the customer, not so much.


THAT IS THE POINT! .. Not one person here, ever, has said DECA beats Ethernet for "General use." The entire discussion from day one last year has centered around the fact that DECA is the best choice for DIRECTV. You have to consider all of the facts.

There is no way that Ethernet is better than DECA when you consider all of the facts. This includes cost.

Also, I've stated many times that if you have an existing Ethernet setup and the only barrier is DIRECTV not turning on whole home (other network stuff still works, BTW), then folks should use the unsupported method. Remember, folks that visit DBSTalk probably know how to install Ethernet so if they want to .. great .. It still means more wiring. I can assure you that I do not have DECA going to my computers in my house. I only have DECA on my DIRECTV boxes. It works great. I don't regret for a second switching to DECA because (with HR24s) everything is built in. The Ethernet cable would only add unneeded mess behind each DVR.

So hopefully with your statement above you're finally getting what everyone else is talking about. This is for DIRECTV STBs, not for anything else.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> If the point is about what's best for DIRECTV, then DECA is a good fit. If the point is what is most generally useful for the customer, not so much.
> 
> Over time we've established that the failure rates for both are relatively low so if it comes down to DIRECTV offering a LAN segment that can only be practically used with DIRECTV equipment, that's not for the customer. DECA doesn't appear to be upgradeable nor is it particularly useful without DIRECTV service. It is somewhat like selling someone a truck and telling them you can only use it to carry goods from Costco.


Why would you need a networking scheme that's useable outside of DirecTV's equipment or after a sub no longer has DirecTV service? That doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say DirecTV should be supplying subscribers with fully functional home networks for all their networking needs? Who the heck is gonna support that? Last I check DirecTV was a TV service provider? :scratchin



> From the standpoint of troubleshooting not involving a truck roll, the first recommendation seems to be making the IP addresses static (I'm not convinced that this has anything to do with anything) and DECA doesn't address that in any meaningful way. Bringing up problems with the router is a non-starter as the router is going to be as big a part of a DECA installation as it is with any other connection technology.


 Bringing up router problems is NOT a non-starter. Apparently you didn't understand my point so I'll try to be clearer.

How many different routers are there out there? How do you provide support for all the manufacturers and models? The answer is you can't so you don't. DECA doesn't use a separate router so there's nothing to troubleshoot. 


> Avoiding DHCP simply makes changing routers more likely to be a problem.


What? 

What the heck does this have to do with a DECA setup? This is a nonissue with DECA so why even bring it up. :scratch



> To the end of SWiM and DECA, DIRECTV has essentially said that they want to take over your coax and use it exclusively for their purposes and you need to forget about using it for your purposes. At least the coax is still usable in the event that DIRECTV is shown the door.


This makes not sense what so ever. :ewww:

What the heck would you be using the coax for? And, don't say OTA because that it's very tough to make work over the same coax with any service provider (not just DirecTV) so it really is a non sequitur. If you're gonna argue against the use of DECA at least use practical real world situations that more and a minute fraction of subs would even attempt to make work. 

Mike


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

This thread has turned even more ridiculous than I thought possible. :nono:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> ... Finally, coax is absolutely lousy for portable devices (not necessarily handhelds or portable computers)


Wireless, baby! (What portable devices are you thinking of that aren't handheld or computers?) 


harsh said:


> Fishing Ethernet cable is often a lot easier and one drop can serve a large number of varied clients.


"...A lot easier"? "A lot easier"? I've fished both, coax has some very nice advantages when it comes to fishing and is easier on finishing than Ethernet. Joe six pack can finish coax (Dish Network hires them as installers...) 


harsh said:


> ... but my 50 and 85 year old houses are fully CAT5e wired to all rooms that don't have a sink or large, noisy appliance in them.


Somehow I don't think you are Joe Six pack though... 



harsh said:


> I bet Ethernet has better penetration than MoCA and DECA combined.


Everybody sing it with me: "WELL DUH!!" !rolling

Comparing 15 year old technology penetration against 15 month old technology is so way, way beneath your normal arguments. Would you like to try again? 

Thanks for the laugh,
Tom


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> In any case I don't think his "complaint" is so much with DECA.


My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?

So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?
> 
> So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


How else can you use a DirecTV box without coax?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?
> 
> So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


At this time, you must have coax anyway. Other than the the IP based MDU setup, every single DirecTv receiver available today requires a coax line. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Even unsupported, you still need a box with coax today.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> How else can you use a DirecTV box without coax?


Good point


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?
> 
> So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


I think you are making assumptions not yet in evidence if you are talking about the HR34 .. Clearly Samsung TVs do not have coax MoCA/DECA connections, they use Ethernet. We don't really know what "fully supported" means in this case yet because the product isn't released (HR34).

If you are taking about anything other than an HR34 then you MUST have a coax connection anyway .. There is no alternative so your existing Cat5 connection isn't relevant if you want DIRECTV service.

My guess is that with respect to the HR34, "supported" will mean getting coax connections to the HR34 and perhaps connecting the HR34 to a TV. This would also apply to any DIRECTV supplied client boxes. Additionally, it will be important to connect the TV to your home network. Any non-DIRECTV RVU devices would be the customer's responsibility .. effective "unsupported." I really wouldn't put too much stock into that word though as everything is going to take on a whole new look with this new model.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?
> 
> So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


If coax weren't necessary for simple delivery of the satellite signal, I might understand your complaint. Currently coax is necessary just to get the TV signal, so you might as well be complaining that the sky isn't red, money doesn't grow on trees, etc.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> If coax weren't necessary for simple delivery of the satellite signal, I might understand your complaint. Currently coax is necessary just to get the TV signal, so you might as well be complaining that the sky isn't red, money doesn't grow on trees, etc.


No kidding...not to mention most homes have coax runs already from the cable TV haydays 20+ years ago.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> If coax weren't necessary for simple delivery of the satellite signal, I might understand your complaint. Currently coax is necessary just to get the TV signal, so you might as well be complaining that the sky isn't red, money doesn't grow on trees, etc.


But if you're happy using the box only for MRV, there is zero need for the satellite signal to be present aside from the fact that that's just how DirecTV does it right now.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> But if you're happy using the box only for MRV, there is zero need for the satellite signal to be present aside from the fact that that's just how DirecTV does it right now.


well... that and to authorize the box in the first place...


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

And even more importantly the coax delivers the account information refresh to the receiver that keeps it authorized for your channel package and that add on thing ummm what was that again oh yeah WHDVR

Don "hey we can use carpet thread right? it's waxed and it's thick and..." Bolton



David Ortiz said:


> If coax weren't necessary for simple delivery of the satellite signal, I might understand your complaint. Currently coax is necessary just to get the TV signal, so you might as well be complaining that the sky isn't red, money doesn't grow on trees, etc.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> well... that and to authorize the box in the first place...


But...


Jeremy W said:


> that's just how DirecTV does it right now.


There's absolutely no technical reason that it *has *to be done that way.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> But...
> 
> There's absolutely no technical reason that it *has *to be done that way.


I think, for many reasons, it makes sense for a receiver to remain connected to the satellite.

Anything else would be a thin client--a whole nuther animal. (And we call it RVU.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think, for many reasons, it makes sense for a receiver to remain connected to the satellite.


But my point is that all of those reasons are related to the way the system is currently designed. There is no technical reason why even the current hardware couldn't be used in an "MRV Client Only" mode if DirecTV wanted to. But they don't want to, and I don't blame them.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> But my point is that all of those reasons are related to the way the system is currently designed. There is no technical reason why even the current hardware couldn't be used in an "MRV Client Only" mode if DirecTV wanted to. But they don't want to, and I don't blame them.


Actually there might be a technical reason that might be difficult to work around--software download. A receiver bootstrap to download software might be in that protected section of software that no one (rightfully) wants to touch whatsoever.

And the security risk of allowing alternative means for downloading software into a receiver.

Aside from those reasons, there probably isn't a problem creating a MRV (or RVU) only option out of receivers.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually there might be a technical reason that might be difficult to work around--software download. A receiver bootstrap to download software might be in that protected section of software that no one (rightfully) wants to touch whatsoever.
> 
> And the security risk of allowing alternative means for downloading software into a receiver.


There's already an alternative way to download software into a receiver...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> There's already an alternative way to download software into a receiver...


Not really .. Tom's probably hit the nail on the head with this one.

The C30 thin client is more the "new" way to do it. No need to shoehorn a conceptually different way into an older platform ...

BUT .. to your point, of course it "could" be done. It's all software if you think about it. It just seems unnecessary for general consumption.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

I sort of get the point Mike as we are becoming more and more connected every day which is why I had my home wired for Ethernet when I moved in. Almost everybody out in the real world (outside of us geeks) relies on wireless, most of which is default set up with no security.

Having a service that would combine your TV with a wired home LAN *is* a marketable (and useful product) for a large number of subscribers whom lack the tech savvy (or family members nearby with such) I would think.

This was my first thought when DECA was announced and for the non geeks it will "dissolve" when the SWM and splitters leave the building.

I get the path DTV chose and why but there is an additional relevant marketable revenue stream generating service in leveraging the coax for both IMO...

As to the alternate use of coax... That one frosted me as when I set up my service I had to employ a low voltage electrician to deploy what is an apartment building scope commercial install. I was able to use diplexers and a single coax line to integrate off air and DTV.

Then when HD was expanded I was forced to re employ the electrician to draw secondary lines down to maintain terrestrial signals that I use primarily for FM services but also TV OTA services. These worked perfectly fine using the diplexers prior.

At this time I plumbed extra lines for DVRs in 3 more rooms, used the old amplified multiswitch to drive the "old" terrestrial network and added an amplified wideband multiswitch to support the HD.

Several years later MRV hits, I again employ an outside contractor, this time a local AV specialist to convert to SWM to add some receiver capacity and prepare for DECA should it come in s size "XXL" someday Since then I've been handling the head end configuration upgrades myself.

So during the 5+ year period from Mar 05 till just about a year ago I've installed and then majorly revamped my basic architecture 2 times and once D* claimed the OTA frequency spectrum they have kept it requiring I maintain separate coax networks to support my excesses:grin:

My Ethernet LAN is just what I put in 5 years ago by comparison and has supported the increasing demands imposed by my WHDVR services, network AV receivers, BluRay Players, network capable TVs, computers, and printers.

To be fair the vast (overwhelmingly so) majority of subscribers could just let DTV do the upgrades along the way and not invest out of pocket. My infrastructures scope would not permit this. I'm an extreme case (on so many levels but thats not the issue here:eek2

So some of the points do hit home to me in an odd sort of way. I get where Direct has gone and why. I stick with it cause I like the results but the continual infrastructure shifts have required expensive infrastructure changes on my side that their "one size fits all" residential service model cannot cover.

It used to make me mad, but hey, I've got a mega system and it rocks so in the end it's all good.

I hate to say this but some interesting points have been raised, although I would argue that outside the target demographic DTV services it wouldn't be cost justifiable to change at this point.

Still dropping in a combined Sat TV service along with hard wired home network might be a great selling point across a broad subscriber base...

Don "forgive my blathering, it's time for my meds" Bolton



Mike Bertelson said:


> Why would you need a networking scheme that's useable outside of DirecTV's equipment or after a sub no longer has DirecTV service? That doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say DirecTV should be supplying subscribers with fully functional home networks for all their networking needs? Who the heck is gonna support that? Last I check DirecTV was a TV service provider? :scratchin
> 
> What the heck would you be using the coax for? And, don't say OTA because that it's very tough to make work over the same coax with any service provider (not just DirecTV) so it really is a non sequitur. If you're gonna argue against the use of DECA at least use practical real world situations that more and a minute fraction of subs would even attempt to make work.
> 
> Mike


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> My complaint is that in order to have "officially supported" Multi Room Viewing with DirecTV, the installer will REQUIRE me to run coax into rooms that I don't have coax in. From my understanding, if a DirecTV installer shows up at my house, and I tell him to use the current Cat5e wiring instead of drilling holes in my walls for coax, he won't do it. Why should that be the case when there is already completely capable wiring already existing in the form of Cat5e?
> 
> So whether my complaint is with DECA, or MoCA, or DirecTV, or the FCC, or the Girl Scouts of America... It doesn't matter to me. I just don't see why the "officially supported" version requires coax runs.


You'd have to clarify the statement a bit. If you're referring to current gen receivers then you're right; gotta have coax to a receiver. As others have mentioned this has nothing to do with MRV/DECA, but has to do with the receiver "seeing" the sat. I could see how this would be viewed as a limitation if you'd just like to use the receiver for MRV.

If you're referring to the HR34 then you might just be surprised on the ethernet aspect. In any case (supported or unsupported) if D* allows the tech to connect the HR34 to your ethernet runs it doesn't mean he's going to support/maintain them. So in this case "supported" may not mean what you want it to mean.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> Still dropping in a combined Sat TV service along with hard wired home network might be a great selling point across a broad subscriber base...


Show me the money ...

Don, you're the edge condition. For you, absolutely, the full-on service would have been useful and worthwhile (and not free). Remember, most installs are "free" .. meaning no money changes hands. It's already bare bones if you listen to the techs here .. how exactly is adding either more training or, more likely, a second tech for the extra work going to keep the "free" model going?

For better or worse, customers want free and DIRECTV wants to keep costs down and profits up .. Those are highly conflicting statements. You were annoyed by the change in OTA due to the SWiM setup .. but the percentage of DIRECTV customers who actually closer to the 1% range than the 50% range. As a result, it doesn't make business sense to worry about that .. Why spend money 100 times when it's only used by 1? That's 99 times out of 100 they've wasted money (concerning your OTA example).

Also, that "being nice" and installing both Coax and Ethernet infrastructure would also mean maintaining said Ethernet infrastructure, yes? Even more cost, and for what? Where is DIRECTV gaining anything through supporting a second infrastructure. No where .. It will only cause added work.

Bottom line is what you talk about is a "nice to have" .. but it stops there. Necessity doesn't play a part .. As a result, it should be incumbent upon the homeowner to handle the home network either by themselves or by contracting with someone else to do it for them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

If DTV switched to an all ethernet system they could get more mirroring fees that way letting consumers hook DTV up to any HD device with an ethernet connection.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV switched to an all ethernet system they could get more mirroring fees that way letting consumers hook DTV up to any HD device with an ethernet connection.


You're missing the whole point of this thread: DTV installers are not ethernet installers and are not trained to configure and troubleshoot the hundreds (thousands?) of models of consumer routers that customer may have. :nono:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV switched to an all ethernet system they could get more mirroring fees that way letting consumers hook DTV up to any HD device with an ethernet connection.


You mean your PS3 don't you .. 

Trust me, it doesn't work that way and it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> You mean your PS3 don't you ..
> 
> Trust me, it doesn't work that way and it ain't gonna happen.


AllVid...


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

I realize this wouldn't help me I get that.. I don't expect free with my place after understanding the service model. But the demographic DTV targets might just cough up more moola for the in home LAN feature (using the DECA infrastructure to provide it). I was not thinking a separate LAN infrastructure, merely making the DECA "LAN" have more utility and charging for the add on functionality.

Perhaps I'm being naive in that. And certainly now that they've a working product heavily distributed in the wild, redesign just doesn't make business sense...

I was just conveying some random thoughts and what I've been through. It's taken some maturity on my part to apply the logic to the situation. I'm not complaining at this point. I am enjoying and more than a bit proud of what we've (D, my contractors, and myself (with this groups help)) built together over the past several years.

Heck I've traded off an old 46 inch XBR2 to one of my son's friends who is a fully licensed electrician and does low voltage work on the job as needed for several more coax drops for the kitchen/breakfast nook and the beading room.

Don "though I am skipping the butlers pantry" Bolton



Doug Brott said:


> Show me the money ...
> 
> Don, you're the edge condition. For you, absolutely, the full-on service would have been useful and worthwhile (and not free). Remember, most installs are "free" .. meaning no money changes hands. It's already bare bones if you listen to the techs here .. how exactly is adding either more training or, more likely, a second tech for the extra work going to keep the "free" model going?
> 
> ...


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> But if you're happy using the box only for MRV, there is zero need for the satellite signal to be present aside from the fact that that's just how DirecTV does it right now.


Exactly. I am obviously making an assumption about how the HR34 is going to work. I'm just saying in an ideal world one could connect a client to the HR34 over either coax OR ethernet... But from the sounds of it, DirecTV is probably going to go with the DECA/coax only route... I'm just hoping that DirecTV will allow the HR34 setup to work over ethernet since the cables are obviously capable.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> Exactly. I am obviously making an assumption about how the HR34 is going to work. I'm just saying in an ideal world one could connect a client to the HR34 over either coax OR ethernet... But from the sounds of it, DirecTV is probably going to go with the DECA/coax only route... I'm just hoping that DirecTV will allow the HR34 setup to work over ethernet since the cables are obviously capable.


Ah, there is perhaps where you went off track. RVU will support Ethernet. My Samsung, RVU (soon to be) ready, TV is ethernet only.

While DIRECTV's clients might or might not be ethernet, others will be.

So you really should be in good shape in an RVU environment.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Doug Brott said:


> You mean your PS3 don't you ..
> 
> Trust me, it doesn't work that way and it ain't gonna happen.


Or HDTV or PC.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> Exactly. I am obviously making an assumption about how the HR34 is going to work. I'm just saying in an ideal world one could connect a client to the HR34 over either coax OR ethernet... *But from the sounds of it, DirecTV is probably going to go with the DECA/coax only route.*.. I'm just hoping that DirecTV will allow the HR34 setup to work over ethernet since the cables are obviously capable.


Even if they do, a DECA dongle takes care of the problem in your case. Connect the DECA to your HR34, and your ethernet network to the DECA. The only extra piece to support on your part would be the DECA. It's the equivilent of supporting an ethernet switch on your network (which you likely do already), and the liklihood that it will go bad is slim. They can be had for $10 on Ebay in any case, so I'd think that would be a win-win.

As I mentioned earlier though, I think you might be surprised in this case...


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ah, there is perhaps where you went off track. RVU will support Ethernet. My Samsung, RVU (soon to be) ready, TV is ethernet only.
> 
> While DIRECTV's clients might or might not be ethernet, others will be.
> 
> ...


I am moving into my new house next week... My Samsung UN55D6400 is on its way from Amazon as we speak. I ordered it precisely because it is advertized as being DirecTV capable without the need for an external receiver.

I've asked DirecTV about allowing me to hook up my H21 via ethernet only until the HR34 comes out, just so I can watch the stuff I've recorded on my HR23... but they say no can do. They say I still need an external box to get a DirecTV signal to the new Samsung, even though it is advertized as not needing an external box... And they still require a DECA/coax connection... Even though I saw that many of you on the Cutting Edge forum said that MRV would work over ethernet.

As far as this whole MRV vs DECA vs RVU thing... I'm sure there's a difference in your eyes... All I want is to be able to watch something recorded on my DVR on another TV that is hooked up to it with an ethernet cable. I don't see why a coax cable is required. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave it to the rest of you to fight over acronyms.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> As far as this whole MRV vs DECA vs RVU thing... I'm sure there's a difference in your eyes...


It's not just our eyes. They are separate things and indeed, separate concepts.



> All I want is to be able to watch something recorded on my DVR on another TV that is hooked up to it with an ethernet cable. I don't see why a coax cable is required. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave it to the rest of you to fight over acronyms.


Then until the HR34 sees the public light of day and makes it into distribution channels, your only option is a separate Directv receiver at each viewing location. That requires coax drops. Period. Will that situation change? The Magic 8 Ball says, "Signs Point to YES." When? "Soon."

But not now.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Even if they do, a DECA dongle takes care of the problem in your case. Connect the DECA to your HR34, and your ethernet network to the DECA. The only extra piece to support on your part would be the DECA. It's the equivilent of supporting an ethernet switch on your network (which you likely do already), and the liklihood that it will go bad is slim. They can be had for $10 on Ebay in any case, so I'd think that would be a win-win.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier though, I think you might be surprised in this case...


Perhaps some explanation is in order. From everything I've read on here, DECA is DirecTV's name for MoCA, which has repeatedly been described as a standard for networking VIA COAX cable... Is that not correct? Your post describes DECA as "an extra piece" and "a $10 part." A networking standard is not "a part."

Please explain.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> I am moving into my new house next week... My Samsung UN55D6400 is on its way from Amazon as we speak. I ordered it precisely because it is advertized as being DirecTV capable without the need for an external receiver.
> 
> ...


So, you're just going to have a nice TV sitting there without TV because you don't want 1 coax line in the room?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> Perhaps some explanation is in order. From everything I've read on here, DECA is DirecTV's name for MoCA, which has repeatedly been described as a standard for networking VIA COAX cable... Is that not correct? Your post describes DECA as "an extra piece" and "a $10 part." A networking standard is not "a part."
> 
> Please explain.


http://pimages.solidsignal.com/DECA1MR01_zoom.jpg

This is a DECA "dongle." It has an ethernet port, 2 coax connections, and requires a power source (either from a receiver, or a separate P/S.) In layman's terms the dongle can tie a coaxial and ethernet network together. So just because something is networked over coax or ethernet, it doesn't mean that a transition can't be made back to the other.

This means that a receiver that's "DECA only" isn't...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jasonblair said:


> I am moving into my new house next week... My Samsung UN55D6400 is on its way from Amazon as we speak. I ordered it precisely because it is advertized as being DirecTV capable without the need for an external receiver.
> 
> I've asked DirecTV about allowing me to hook up my H21 via ethernet only until the HR34 comes out, just so I can watch the stuff I've recorded on my HR23... but they say no can do. They say I still need an external box to get a DirecTV signal to the new Samsung, even though it is advertized as not needing an external box... And they still require a DECA/coax connection... Even though I saw that many of you on the Cutting Edge forum said that MRV would work over ethernet.
> 
> As far as this whole MRV vs DECA vs RVU thing... I'm sure there's a difference in your eyes... All I want is to be able to watch something recorded on my DVR on another TV that is hooked up to it with an ethernet cable. I don't see why a coax cable is required. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave it to the rest of you to fight over acronyms.


To clarify the Sammy is D* RVU server capable. The RVU server would be the HR34 and is not available yet. Most tech's/CSR's don't have a clue about the HR34, or RVU, so the answer you received would be correct (for now.) Should you wish to purchase an HR34 when they become available you'll find a solution to your problem.

While the H21 will MRV through its ethernet port, it's also a full fledged receiver (meaning it requires a sat connection via coax.) I can see your point about wishing to utilize it as a client, but it wasn't designed for that purpose.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> Perhaps some explanation is in order. From everything I've read on here, DECA is DirecTV's name for MoCA, which has repeatedly been described as a standard for networking VIA COAX cable... Is that not correct? Your post describes DECA as "an extra piece" and "a $10 part." A networking standard is not "a part."
> 
> Please explain.


Technically speaking .. DECA is a DIRECTV Ethernet over Coax Adapter, or the little white Connected Home adapter that plugs into the back of your HR20, HR21, HR22, etc.

MoCA is the technology (Multimedia over Coax) .. We modified the terminology a bit (rightly or wrongly) such that DECA is also DIRECTV's flavor or MoCA since it's at different frequencies than Cable MoCA.

So, for better or worse, DECA means both exactly what you are saying ** AND ** it also means the physical adapter. It has dual meaning so you have to look at it in context as well.

Hopefully that clears it up.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jasonblair said:



> I am moving into my new house next week... My Samsung UN55D6400 is on its way from Amazon as we speak. I ordered it precisely because it is advertized as being DirecTV capable without the need for an external receiver.
> 
> I've asked DirecTV about allowing me to hook up my H21 via ethernet only until the HR34 comes out, just so I can watch the stuff I've recorded on my HR23... but they say no can do. They say I still need an external box to get a DirecTV signal to the new Samsung, even though it is advertized as not needing an external box... And they still require a DECA/coax connection... Even though I saw that many of you on the Cutting Edge forum said that MRV would work over ethernet.
> 
> As far as this whole MRV vs DECA vs RVU thing... I'm sure there's a difference in your eyes... All I want is to be able to watch something recorded on my DVR on another TV that is hooked up to it with an ethernet cable. I don't see why a coax cable is required. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave it to the rest of you to fight over acronyms.


You are on the right track. (I love my 55D6000, I hope you'll love your new Sammy as well.)

Unfortunately we are just a bit ahead of the curve. RVU is announced, DIRECTVs RVU server has been forcast, Sammy has announced RVU support--but none of these are ready today, alas.

In my opinion you've done the best things to prepare for things coming. (and got a great TV.) 

So now the question becomes what short-term adjustments do you make until all the pieces come together. I'm not above running a cable on the floor (or strung from the ceiling) for a short time. Now, normally that was ethernet cable run on the floor until I could properly fish cable in the walls, but I wouldn't be above doing a coax run that way. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Technically speaking .. DECA is a DIRECTV Ethernet over Coax Adapter, or the little white Connected Home adapter that plugs into the back of your HR20, HR21, HR22, etc.
> 
> MoCA is the technology (Multimedia over Coax) .. We modified the terminology a bit (rightly or wrongly) such that DECA is also DIRECTV's flavor or MoCA since it's at different frequencies than Cable MoCA.
> 
> ...


Actually, MoCA has adopted the DIRECTV frequencies as part of the full MoCA specification. (As well as the original frequencies.) So in reality it is all MoCA 1.2. 

DIRECTV has built their MoCA adapters because someone had to.  And it gives DIRECTV better ability to support the whole solution.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually there might be a technical reason that might be difficult to work around--software download. A receiver bootstrap to download software might be in that protected section of software that no one (rightfully) wants to touch whatsoever.
> 
> And the security risk of allowing alternative means for downloading software into a receiver.
> 
> ...


Not quite sure I follow why the medium in which the data gets to the receiver matters. Whether you are bootstrapping something into eeprom is a matter of secure data exchange from something you trust and there's no reason it has to be via satellite to be trusted.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sunking said:


> Not quite sure I follow why the medium in which the data gets to the receiver matters. Whether you are bootstrapping something into eeprom is a matter of secure data exchange from something you trust and there's no reason it has to be via satellite to be trusted.


Right now it is prohibitively expensive for people to put the software on the receiver. very few people can transmit a signal over or otherwise simulate satellite data streams into the receiver. That makes it a secure medium.

If DIRECTV opened up the receivers to download software via USB, ethernet, or anything else, those are far less secure. Everyone can plug in a USB or an ethernet cable.

That is why DIRECTV won't enable ethernet-based, MRV only receivers. They will stick with creating thin clients instead.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Right now it is prohibitively expensive for people to put the software on the receiver.


Not really.  The receivers can download software via Ethernet.

Now if you're talking about *valid *software, that's a different issue.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> Not really.  The receivers can download software via Ethernet.
> 
> Now if you're talking about *valid *software, that's a different issue.


By "download software", in this case, I am not refering to VOD software or youtube programs. I am only refering to downloadable flash software.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> There's already an alternative way to download software into a receiver...





Jeremy W said:


> Not really.  The receivers can download software via Ethernet.
> 
> Now if you're talking about *valid *software, that's a different issue.





Tom Robertson said:


> By "download software", in this case, I am not refering to VOD software or youtube programs. I am only refering to downloadable flash software.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


:new_popco

I assume Jeremy is privy to something most of us aren't. I don't think he's talking about VOD or YouTube.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> By "download software", in this case, I am not refering to VOD software or youtube programs. I am only refering to downloadable flash software.


We're referring to the same thing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> This means that a receiver that's "DECA only" isn't...


What an untidy collection of dongles and cabling an Ethernet/Wi-fi connected and RF remoted H25 would be. :nono:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> What an untidy collection of dongles and cabling an Ethernet/Wi-fi connected and RF remoted H25 would be. :nono:


Is that how you have your H25 connected?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> What an untidy collection of dongles and cabling an Ethernet/Wi-fi connected and RF remoted H25 would be. :nono:


You're the one who wants ethernet infrastructure supported; a DECA dongle is no more obtrusive than an ethernet switch. The rest of your cabling and "ethernet/wi-fi" is what would be required if ethernet was supported, so I have no idea what you mean by that.

In any case you used "dongles" as a plural -- it would only take a single DECA dongle to connect ethernet to an H25. Since an H25 requires a coaxial connection anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't just network over the coax (that lessens your "untidy collection".) But then again you seem to care how TCP/IP gets to the receiver which is the part I don't understand.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> You're the one who wants ethernet infrastructure supported; *a DECA dongle is no more obtrusive than an ethernet switch*. The rest of your cabling and "ethernet/wi-fi" is what would be required if ethernet was supported, so I have no idea what you mean by that.


In fact in many cases...its even less than that - the HR24 series and H25 HD receiver have DECA built in...


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

To understand I'm gathering here (by observation) is twofold. He is using a focus on the points where Ethernet indeed is more functional (as in scalable) than DECA (purely by design DECA is scaled to a practical limit for all but a few of us crazed obsessed folks).

I believe he's using this to toy with us as we sure get spun up and the thread gets going, names get called, world peace is threatened, planes fall out of the sky, babies are born without hands, and that horse, "oh the humanity".

Don "the only winning move is not to play" Bolton



dsw2112 said:


> You're the one who wants ethernet infrastructure supported; a DECA dongle is no more obtrusive than an ethernet switch. The rest of your cabling and "ethernet/wi-fi" is what would be required if ethernet was supported, so I have no idea what you mean by that.
> 
> In any case you used "dongles" as a plural -- it would only take a single DECA dongle to connect ethernet to an H25. Since an H25 requires a coaxial connection anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't just network over the coax (that lessens your "untidy collection".) But then again you seem to care how TCP/IP gets to the receiver which is the part I don't understand.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> To understand I'm gathering here (by observation) is twofold. He is using a focus on the points where Ethernet indeed is more functional (as in scalable) than DECA (purely by design DECA is scaled to a practical limit for all but a few of us crazed obsessed folks).
> 
> I believe he's using this to toy with us as we sure get spun up and the thread gets going, names get called, world peace is threatened, planes fall out of the sky, babies are born without hands, and that horse, "oh the humanity".
> 
> Don "the only winning move is not to play" Bolton


It's commonly called...Trolling.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

OK guys .. Let's play nice. Thank You.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> What an untidy collection of dongles and cabling an Ethernet/Wi-fi connected and RF remoted H25 would be. :nono:


H25s have built in DECA and a single coax. The Ethernet "dongle" doesn't have to live next to the H25 .. It can live anywhere on the SWiM network or could simply be non-existent if Internet connectivity is not desired or required.

RF is optional, but helpful in situations where the H25 is out of view so untidy is relative, right .. outta sight, outta mind.

So beyond that, I'm not exactly sure how that relates to the topic at hand.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> ...
> At this point, it appears that all of the RVU capable TVs are going to be using Ethernet ultimately so it is just a matter of time. The only question in my mind is whether the C30 will have an Ethernet port on it in the event that you don't find a suitable RVU TV. That the C30 isn't passing Energy Star requirements may lead to a re-thinking of the connection strategy if they can't prevail upon the EPA to give them a pass.


Well, well. Someone has a gift for picking "supporting" information for (strawman) arguments that is the most disingenuous.

The linked set of charts was a response by DIRECTV to the very FIRST draft of version 3 of the EnergyStar specifications. You smarter readers will note that would be the draft where the EPA asks for feedback about mistakes in the draft...

And for some reason the post implies this draft is the final specs and therefore the C30 does pass them specs... I'm thinking bad form. We'll let y'all decide for yourselves...

The final form of the specs have been released: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partne...GY_STAR_STB_Final_Version_3_Specification.pdf. They take effect September 1, 2011.

After reading them and some of DIRECTVs comments, the C30 should already pass the real Version 3 specs.

I don't mind arguments that are biased, as bias is very hard to completely remove. But sometimes bias gives way to something completely different--and we're not talking about "Monty Python" here... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## balboadave (Mar 3, 2010)

While I have no opinion on the relative merits of DECA and ethernet, I very much enjoy that my DirecTV boxes exist as an independent DECA subsytem of my ethernet network. Either system could go down without substantially affecting the other. I think the DECA vs. Ethernet Technical Discussion is pointless. Why can't we just accept that DirecTV lets us make use of the best of both worlds?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

balboadave said:


> While I have no opinion on the relative merits of DECA and ethernet, I very much enjoy that my DirecTV boxes exist as an independent DECA subsytem of my ethernet network. Either system could go down without substantially affecting the other. I think the DECA vs. Ethernet Technical Discussion is pointless. Why can't we just accept that DirecTV lets us make use of the best of both worlds?


Can I accept that DIRECTV lets us make use of the best of both worlds and enjoy a good discussion too? 

I definitely understand and agree that MoCA is a great technology and DIRECTV has made great use of it.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> You're the one who wants ethernet infrastructure supported; usive than an ethernet switch.


The difference being that you don't need an Ethernet switch at each device. A lot of the time, a single cable will do. Where it won't, one switch will connect an entire room as opposed to having wireless gaming adapters or DECA adapters at each device.


> In any case you used "dongles" as a plural -- it would only take a single DECA dongle to connect ethernet to an H25.


I was speaking of an H25 with a RF remote adapter and maybe an AM21. That would be four separate parts (H25, H25 power supply, AM21, remote control antenna) a conventional power cord for the AM21 and two coaxial cables before the addition of an Ethernet adapter.

The Ethernet adapter (and its attendant wall wart) came up because a branch of the thread spun off as a discussion of using the H25 solely as an MRV client (something it cannot do) using only an Ethernet connection (something it doesn't have).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> The difference being that you don't need an Ethernet switch at each device. A lot of the time, a single cable will do. Where it won't, one switch will connect an entire room as opposed to having wireless gaming adapters or DECA adapters at each device....


In a fully MoCA environment you wouldn't even need the switch in a room with multiple devices... 

Or you could use a single DECA to a switch. No need to complicate things the way you want to.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> In a fully MoCA environment you wouldn't even need the switch in a room with multiple devices...


In DIRECTV's Internet connected vision of the world, can there ever be such a thing as a "fully MoCA environment"?

A fully Ethernet environment is certainly possible.


----------



## balboadave (Mar 3, 2010)

Tom Robertson said:


> Can I accept that DIRECTV lets us make use of the best of both worlds and enjoy a good discussion too?
> 
> I definitely understand and agree that MoCA is a great technology and DIRECTV has made great use of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I think someone doesn't understand or more likely won't admit that it's still ethernet, still TCP/IP. Who cares how it gets to the device if it works properly!

My system of 5 dvrs on DECA with a wireless link back to my router works fine! Are you having problems with your system, Harsh?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> In DIRECTV's Internet connected vision of the world, *can there ever be such a thing as a "fully MoCA environment*"?
> 
> A fully Ethernet environment is certainly possible.





dennisj00 said:


> I think someone doesn't understand or more likely won't admit that it's still ethernet, still TCP/IP. Who cares how it gets to the device if it works properly!
> 
> My system of 5 dvrs on DECA with a wireless link back to my router works fine! Are you having problems with your system, Harsh?


Harsh - there's no reason to have all ethernet or all moca. They can coexist, simply with the addition of a DECA to "tie" the two together. This provides for less cabling where DECA is built into the D* receivers (as the single coax connection provides for Sat and networking.) This then affords the opportunity to use an ethernet connection for...well...a Sammy RVU Tv.

If you're that resistant to that single DECA that will allow this possibility then I can't help you. As was pointed out multiple times (and by *dennisj00*) why does it matter how TCP/IP gets to the device? If RVU takes hold you'll find plenty of ethernet only RVU clients; and yes, they will work with D*.

Your posts seem to indicate that MOCA/DECA is some kind of attack on ethernet where it's simply a niche market to enable easier connectivity. Come on "DIRECTV's Internet connected vision of the world"; are you serious?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> Your posts seem to indicate that MOCA/DECA is some kind of attack on ethernet where it's simply a niche market to enable easier connectivity. Come on "DIRECTV's Internet connected vision of the world"; are you serious?


Think about this: as cable companies, who pretty much own the broadband Internet marketplace, deploy more MoCA, it is going to compete for cabling with DECA. We remember the laments of cable modem users who had to give up diplexing their cable modems on their cables when SWiM came on the scene.

Putting your eggs in the RF basket, you often run into situations where various technologies are competing for frequencies and the result is that you need to run additional cable anyway. The simplest example of RF interference (though not on coax) is the competition between 2.4GHz cordless phones and 2.4GHz routers. In that case, you simply buy new phones. In the case of DECA versus MoCA, you have to convert both to Ethernet to bridge them together. In this case, the "insertion loss" is latency.

Current loop may be the oldest communications technology in the book, but it has its applications.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> I think someone doesn't understand or more likely won't admit that it's still ethernet, still TCP/IP.


It's definitely not Ethernet, but your point still stands.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> Think about this: as cable companies, who pretty much own the broadband Internet marketplace, deploy more MoCA, it is going to compete for cabling with DECA. ...


Why is the cable companies increasing use of MoCA competing with DECA since they are designed for two different systems, one for CATV and the other for DirecTV' satellite installs?

And even if one wishes to mix the two strictly for home networking purposes, other than a major cost advantage for DECA, why would they actually compete or interfere with one another since they operate on completely different frequency bands?



> ... We remember the laments of cable modem users who had to give up diplexing their cable modems on their cables when SWiM came on the scene. ...


Well I sure don't remember, can you enlighten me? It was never recommended to diplex cable modem signals with satellite ones on the same coax to begin with. And ironically it was SWiM which actually made it possible for some to get away with diplexing at least DOCSIS 2.0 CM signals onto satellite coax since the 250-750 MHz Ka-lo band on legacy installs prevented it.



> ... Putting your eggs in the RF basket, you often run into situations where various technologies are competing for frequencies and the result is that you need to run additional cable anyway. The simplest example of RF interference (though not on coax) is the competition between 2.4GHz cordless phones and 2.4GHz routers. In that case, you simply buy new phones. In the case of DECA versus MoCA, you have to convert both to Ethernet to bridge them together. In this case, the "insertion loss" is latency.
> 
> Current loop may be the oldest communications technology in the book, but it has its applications.


But they operate on different frequencies, so where exactly is the competition for RF frequencies coming from? And except for the few who wish to use both for their general networking, I really don't know why someone would want to mix the two to begin with as one is for CATV installs and another for DirecTV DBS satellite ones.

Your cordless telephone comparison is not valid since conflicts were caused by sharing the SAME frequencies.

Once the FCC authorized the separate unlicensed PCS band exclusively for cordless telephone use by the newer DECT 6.0 phones, problem solved.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

harsh said:


> Think about this: as cable companies, who pretty much own the broadband Internet marketplace, deploy more MoCA, it is going to compete for cabling with DECA. We remember the laments of cable modem users who had to give up diplexing their cable modems on their cables when SWiM came on the scene.
> 
> Putting your eggs in the RF basket, you often run into situations where various technologies are competing for frequencies and the result is that you need to run additional cable anyway. The simplest example of RF interference (though not on coax) is the competition between 2.4GHz cordless phones and 2.4GHz routers. In that case, you simply buy new phones. In the case of DECA versus MoCA, you have to convert both to Ethernet to bridge them together. In this case, the "insertion loss" is latency.
> 
> Current loop may be the oldest communications technology in the book, but it has its applications.


This is pretty close to one of your more outlandish statements.

I'm not even sure what you are talking about here. Who exactly is putting DirecTV, DECA, and a Cable modem on one RG6? About the only person who might even think that was a viable option is someone who doesn't have those systems because they'd never be installed in that manner. Oh wait... :sure: I now see why you threw that FUD out there.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> In DIRECTV's Internet connected vision of the world, can there ever be such a thing as a "fully MoCA environment"?
> 
> A fully Ethernet environment is certainly possible.


Is it? I suppose if one never leaves the house to connect to the Internet--cuz that connection ain't gonna be ethernet...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> And even if one wishes to mix the two strictly for home networking purposes, other than a major cost advantage for DECA, why would they actually compete or interfere with one another since they operate on completely different frequency bands?


Because both come with a full array of television programming occupying the balance of their bandwidth, they are mutually exclusive.


> It was never recommended to diplex cable modem signals with satellite ones on the same coax to begin with.


Nonetheless, there are several threads where people want to do exactly that.


> And ironically it was SWiM which actually made it possible for some to get away with diplexing at least DOCSIS 2.0 CM signals onto satellite coax since the 250-750 MHz Ka-lo band on legacy installs prevented it.


And just as ironically, DECA took away that capability. You'll perhaps remember that the original SWM modules came with OTA diplexers in them and DECA killed that too.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Is it? I suppose if one never leaves the house to connect to the Internet--cuz that connection ain't gonna be ethernet...


I suppose if you consider the great outdoors your "environment". I was thinking more on a household level and that's where most people's subnets are.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> You'll perhaps remember that the original SWM modules came with OTA diplexers in them and DECA killed that too.


Good thing only a tiny percentage of DIRECTV subscribers even use OTA (edge condition) .. Oh, and most of those that do .. Good thing they most likely used to be connected via a WB68 cause now Diplexing isn't an issue .. they use the second wire for OTA rather than a second sat tuner.

Look harsh .. say what you really mean .. You just want to disparage DIRECTV. Get to the point rather than beating around the bush. We all know where you stand .. we just don't get the "why" part.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> Because both come with a full array of television programming occupying the balance of their bandwidth, they are mutually exclusive. ...


What???  



> ... Nonetheless, there are several threads where people want to do exactly that. ...


People no doubt want to do a lot of things in this life. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should or could do them.



> ... And just as ironically, DECA took away that capability. ...


No more ironic than say a cable company's upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 would take away the same capability.

Should the cable company then be faulted like you do DECA for that?



> ... You'll perhaps remember that the original SWM modules came with OTA diplexers in them and DECA killed that too.


DECA didn't "kill" anything, one does not have to use it and can keep their OTA diplexing. Anymore than before SWiM one did not have to upgrade to HD service with its wideband multi-switches such as the WB68 and WB616 which also had to eliminate diplexing due to the presence of the Ka-lo band.

So in each case a compromise had to be made by the few OTA users who choose to upgrade to either of those features by running a second line for OTA access.

Such are the sacrifices of certain conveniences along life's merry way to even better ones ... 

Boy, what a cornball statement that was ...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> Because both come with a full array of television programming occupying the balance of their bandwidth, they are mutually exclusive.


What's the bottom line here? That D* should remove coax and exclusively use ethernet? What about the person that has a 100 Mbit network with Cat 5 run to each room; what happens when that bandwidth is exceeded by multiple MRV streams (as well as the remaining items they already had networked before a D* install?) Does D* then upgrade them to Cat 6, and a gig switch? What a sweet upgrade, and I assume they'll fish all the Cat 6 through the walls?

What about the person that doesn't want D* piggybacking on their previous ethernet run? Does the tech then run a new line to the room? Is RF now completely gone; i.e. does the Sat use coax, or is that via ethernet as well? What about the BD player that no longer streams Netflix in the living room, because the tech added an ethernet switch to feed the D* receiver? Does D* fix that? What if the ethernet switch itself fails?

It a home ethernet network it's tough to draw a dividing line between what D*'s responsibility would be, and the homeowner. It would be interesting to hear you lay out the business plan of switching to all ethernet, and the specifics of how that might be accomplished/supported.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Good thing only a tiny percentage of DIRECTV subscribers even use OTA (edge condition) ..


It doesn't seem fair to marginalize those who aren't fully served but I guess it is all about give and take.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> It doesn't seem fair to marginalize those who aren't fully served but I guess it is all about give and take.


While I suppose it might not _seem_ fair to marginalize, but every company does exactly that. They serve whom they can. DIRECTV doesn't fix tires, even though a large percentage of DIRECTV customers will have flats sometime in their lifetime. 

DIRECTV does try to serve OTA customers, I'm happy with both my AM21 and HR20s. DIRECTV serves me. I have plenty of spare coax since they all were run with duals.

I never even considered running cable and DIRECTV together. I don't put Ford parts in Chevy cars. Just doesn't seem to make sense. 

And for thems that might want to run cable internet and DIRECTV, they most likely don't share common coax segments in the house. Or at worst are a single cable run. No biggie.

So it all is about give and take and engineering to the customers you can afford to provide solutions for. And every company has to do that or they overspend and die.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> It doesn't seem fair to marginalize those who aren't fully served but I guess it is all about give and take.


You are mistaken .. Asking the OTA user to run two cables for their special need is way more fair than asking all DIRECTV customers to run two cables when most (read high 90s in percentage) don't even have a need for it. This is the part you don't seem to get.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> It doesn't seem fair to marginalize those who aren't fully served but I guess it is all about give and take.


Can OTA remain coaxial, or does that need to somehow transition to ethernet as well?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> While I suppose it might not _seem_ fair to marginalize, but every company does exactly that. They serve whom they can. DIRECTV doesn't fix tires, even though a large percentage of DIRECTV customers will have flats sometime in their lifetime.
> 
> DIRECTV does try to serve OTA customers, I'm happy with both my AM21 and HR20s. DIRECTV serves me. I have plenty of spare coax since they all were run with duals.
> 
> ...


once again I can't believe the nonsense that seems to be coming from the thread starter, who doesn't have the service he seems to be complaining about.
Now it seems to be coming down to the use of "a coax".
Let's sort of look at what "this coax" has done in the past:
We started with an antenna that fed our TVs.
Next we had the option of using CATV, but this required another coax [or even two on some systems]. We couldn't mix our OTA with this new coax, since they both use the same frequencies.
Our next option was SAT service, which started out using frequencies above CATV & OTA. This allowed either CATV or OTA to be mixed on a coax.
DirecTV has expanded their frequency range to offer more channels, which means it no longer can be mixed.
CATV has [or is] moving into the frequencies that both SAT providers use, for high speed internet service, so they too are limiting those trying to mix more than 0one service on the same coax.
Now there is MoCa for both DirecTV & CATV service, which in both cases, utilize frequencies that "other providers" use, which further reduces the option of mixing them on one coax.

When I moved to DECA, my cabling was simplified to: one for my DirecTV service, one for my OTA, and my DSL for internet. This is so much cleaner/less cabling than before.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> When I moved to DECA, my cabling was simplified to: one for my DirecTV service, one for my OTA, and my DSL for internet. This is so much cleaner/less cabling than before.


So you're admitting you can't put OTA on the same cable as DirecTV! Disgusting! Abandon coax!*

*Unless it's coax used by Dish or a cable company, then it's OK. Just not DirecTV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> So you're admitting you can't put OTA on the same cable as DirecTV! Disgusting! Abandon coax!*
> 
> *Unless it's coax used by Dish or a cable company, then it's OK. Just not DirecTV.


It must be time to go back to "twinlead & twisted pair". :lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think that we should go back to Token Ring.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think that we should go back to Token Ring.


I think that as long as it's not carrying DirecTV signals, any cable is good.

I mean, um, DECA is unreliable!


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> It must be time to go back to "twinlead & twisted pair". :lol:





Stuart Sweet said:


> I think that we should go back to Token Ring.


And I think we should go back to flat wire for OTA :hurah:

This thread needs to die... and the OP needs to move on somewhere else.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Hey harsh - why didn't you address Doug's point when you replied?



Doug Brott said:


> Look harsh .. say what you really mean .. *You just want to disparage DIRECTV. Get to the point rather than beating around the bush.* We all know where you stand .. *we just don't get the "why" part.*


Isn't the fact that you're bashing Directv (by proxy here, through DECA), relevant to why you keep pushing this supposedly "technical" discussion to ever more absurd lengths? 'Cause it appears to me that you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you have a grudge against Directv? If so, perhaps addressing it directly rather than a withering barrage of partially-correct posts filled with misleading inferences and suppositions might actually accomplish something besides irritating people.

Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> ...
> 
> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


*crickets*


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)




----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


Not even a little bit.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


I think it may be simply human nature to feel comfortable with things you're familiar with an know to some degree and not be with things you don't.
I know I'm more comfortable with RF than ethernet, which is simply because I know one quite well and not the other as well.

Harsh may be more familiar with ethernet and Dishnetwork, than DirecTV.
He also has fairly well demonstrated his lack of understanding RF, over the last few years, IMO.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I think it may be simply human nature to feel comfortable with things you're familiar with an know to some degree and not be with things you don't.


Certainly. But that doesn't excuse baseless bashing of things you're not so familiar with.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Certainly. But that doesn't excuse baseless bashing of things you're not so familiar with.


Well that is another thing and may point to other aspects of someone's nature.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


I think with SWiM and DECA and the new Wireless CCK (which can connect inline with a receiver instead of using an extra port on a splitter) DIRECTV has made the addition of Whole Home DVR and networking seamless. It's a win-win.

Sure, I use the phone line for internet and in the past I've used Comcast for cable internet, but for those situations a single entry point is fine. OTA may be a big deal for some, but the chances are if you have DIRECTV, you are getting your locals in HD from the satellite.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

LameLefty said:


> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


I think that SWM and DECA are two of the best decisions D* has made since their inception. I have tried to reasonably understand the objections, but frankly cannot. :nono: It's relatively easy to utilize both DECA an ethernet, and bridge them where you wish.

I'd still like to see the OP's business plan to implement and support full ethernet though. I'm sure there would be plenty of holes to pick apart in that model :lol: I'd be especially curious how the OP would reconcile OTA, cable modem, and Sat signals over ethernet.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

I think what thiis thread really comes down to is Harsh is saying DTV should have selected ALLVID instead of RVU right?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> I think what thiis thread really comes down to is Harsh is saying DTV should have selected ALLVID instead of RVU right?


Nope, not at all.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> I think what thiis thread really comes down to is Harsh is saying DTV should have selected ALLVID instead of RVU right?


Not even close .. We're talking DECA & Ethernet .. Which are different transmission technologies. Allvid and RVU are protocols and can live on ether DECA or Ethernet.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)




----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Play nice guys ..


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Doug Brott said:


> Not even close .. We're talking DECA & Ethernet .. Which are different transmission technologies. Allvid and RVU are protocols and can live on ether DECA or Ethernet.


Oh, I didn't know that.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

And Allvid is not a complete specification yet. Won't be for another year, I'm guessing.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Looks like people like cablecard over ALLVID anyway, ALLVID isn't gaining much traction. Could cablecard be making a comeback? I guess DTV saw thiis also by going with RVU.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...llion-while-allvid-idea-goes-stale/2011-07-01


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> Looks like people like cablecard over ALLVID anyway, ALLVID isn't gaining much traction. Could cablecard be making a comeback? I guess DTV saw thiis also by going with RVU.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...llion-while-allvid-idea-goes-stale/2011-07-01


Please, this has nothing to do with DECA or ethernet. :nono:

:backtotop


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

When the argument is coherent regarding scalability I can abide the fact that Ethernet does have an edge. Having a seemingly outlandish infrastructure here I fall into that to some degree.

Having had to go from single wire to multi wire to support OTA when services changed was a thorn as well. But again, I'm out in ludicrous land with my AV landscape and can clearly see that for almost entirely all the Direct TV residential subscribers that DECA is a clearly superior *solution*.

It may not be a superior technology entirely across the board but it gets the job done in the typical home with a minimally invasive infrastructure,and it's the same across the board so support evolves into simple documented procedures controlling labor costs.

So to argue which is superior is senseless. It's what DTV has implemented, it works, and as the experience levels using it increase the problems with using/supporting the new technology subside.

So do I agree with him? On a few points OK yeah, but are they meaningful points to the realm? Only for a very, very scant few subscribers. Then there is a lot of the arguments made that really are incoherent which negates the valid ones.

End of the day, I run both and for me there is no difference between either in use. If I could encompass all 18 tuners into a single DECA cloud (or there was a way to bridge 2 clouds with better throughput than a single Ethernet port), I'd consider moving off the Ethernet infrastructure.

Don "so long as my MRV/WHDVR streams work as designed I could care less how it gets there" Bolton


LameLefty said:


> Hey harsh - why didn't you address Doug's point when you replied?
> 
> Isn't the fact that you're bashing Directv (by proxy here, through DECA), relevant to why you keep pushing this supposedly "technical" discussion to ever more absurd lengths? 'Cause it appears to me that you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you have a grudge against Directv? If so, perhaps addressing it directly rather than a withering barrage of partially-correct posts filled with misleading inferences and suppositions might actually accomplish something besides irritating people.
> 
> Question to the readership at large: Does ANYONE agree with harsh about any of this so-called "technical" objection to DECA? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

This maybe a dumb question, but how does DTV use the existing cable in the home if it never had satellite installed? Does DTV unhook the existing cable wire from the behind the wall outlet and leave the existing cable wire hanging inside the wall? Then I could see the advantage of DECA over ethernet.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

lugnutathome said:


> When the argument is coherent...


Don -- a clearly coherent post indeed. It seems the OP's argument has sidetracked into confusing places... I think I was lost for good when it was insinuated that DECA/MOCA is competing to take Ethernet's "throne."


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> This maybe a dumb question, but how does DTV use the existing cable in the home if it never had satellite installed? Does DTV unhook the existing cable wire from the behind the wall outlet and leave the existing cable wire hanging inside the wall? Then I could see DECA working better than ethernet with existing cable outlets.


I think you have the basic idea. DIRECTV unplugs the cable company at the demarcation point on or in the home. (Cable can still run a line to an internet modem if needed.)

From there on, it is all MoCA and SWiM inside the house.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> If I could encompass all 18 tuners into a single DECA cloud (or there was a way to bridge 2 clouds with better throughput than a single Ethernet port), I'd consider moving off the Ethernet infrastructure.


DECA supports 16 nodes, so you could use it to connect 15 DVRs/receivers and one bridge to your router. The SWiM-16 is limited to 16 tuners, but there's no reason you couldn't use 1-3 extra ports to feed "BB DECAs" to add the boxes that are connected to the SWM8.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> DECA supports 16 nodes, so you could use it to connect 15 DVRs/receivers and one bridge to your router. The SWiM-16 is limited to 16 tuners, but there's no reason you couldn't use 1-3 extra ports to feed "BB DECAs" to add the boxes that are connected to the SWM8.


The problem comes with the fringe boxes being on a separate network .. Ethernet is a good solution if you want to invest the time and money to get it working as needed. Don's right about his situation. But for the other 99.999% of DIRECTV customers, no need to go to the expense or the trouble to network them with Ethernet.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The problem comes with the fringe boxes being on a separate network .. Ethernet is a good solution if you want to invest the time and money to get it working as needed. Don's right about his situation. But for the other 99.999% of DIRECTV customers, no need to go to the expense or the trouble to network them with Ethernet.


I certainly don't know Don's setup, but if his sig is correct, all but one DVR could be on the SWiM-16. With a single extra BB DECA connected to a port from the SWiM-16, the last box could be connected to the DECA cloud while still getting its sat signal from the SWM8. All of the boxes would be in the same DECA cloud.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> I certainly don't know Don's setup, but if his sig is correct, all but one DVR could be on the SWiM-16. With a single extra BB DECA connected to a port from the SWiM-16, the last box could be connected to the DECA cloud while still getting its sat signal from the SWM8. All of the boxes would be in the same DECA cloud.


In that scenario, the last box could be fed from the legacy ports and cross connected (as you noted) with a BB DECA. Would probably work well and could reduce the system to a single unit. Although, Don may be the guy that had distance issues for some of the coax runs (must be nice).


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think you have the basic idea. DIRECTV unplugs the cable company at the demarcation point on or in the home. (Cable can still run a line to an internet modem if needed.)
> 
> From there on, it is all MoCA and SWiM inside the house.
> 
> ...


Oh, so with cabe a home the main cable feed into the house sends a signal the other outlets in the house. DTV then disconnects that main cable wire into the house? DTV then hooks their main wire to that cable input on the side of the house? Would it be safe just leaving the wire hanging their and would it be easy to hook back up? Is cable wire as good as DTV's?


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> In that scenario, the last box could be fed from the legacy ports and cross connected (as you noted) with a BB DECA. Would probably work well and could reduce the system to a single unit. Although, Don may be the guy that had distance issues for some of the coax runs (must be nice).


Love that SWiM-16!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> Oh, so with cabe a home the main cable feed into the house sends a signal the other outlets in the house. DTV then disconnects that main cable wire into the house? DTV then hooks their main wire to that cable input on the side of the house? Would it be safe just leaving the wire hanging their and would it be easy to hook back up? Is cable wire as good as DTV's?


Cable wire is "good enough" for SWiM and MoCA frequencies in most houses. Huge houses might need RG6 instead of RG59. Many newer homes are already using RG6.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> Cable wire is "good enough" for SWiM and MoCA frequencies in most houses. Huge houses might need RG6 instead of RG59. Many newer homes are already using RG6.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Cool I can see the advantages of SWIM and DECA now.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

191 line feet to the workout room yeah baby! 145 to the master bedroom, 128 to another, etc... It is nice. I feel very lucky to be where I am in life.

Don "unfortunately size does matter in this case:lol:" Bolton



Doug Brott said:


> In that scenario, the last box could be fed from the legacy ports and cross connected (as you noted) with a BB DECA. Would probably work well and could reduce the system to a single unit. Although, Don may be the guy that had distance issues for some of the coax runs (must be nice).


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Cable wire is "good enough" for SWiM and MoCA frequencies in most houses. Huge houses might need RG6 instead of RG59. Many newer homes are already using RG6.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Not necessarily newer homes. When cable first became available where I lived in 1982, they used RG6 exclusively. I was replacing the floors and molding in my house a few months before they were scheduled to install in my area so I went to the cable office and asked what to use so I could hide it. They handed me about 200 ft. of brand-new RG6, no charge.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> What about the person that has a 100 Mbit network with Cat 5 run to each room; what happens when that bandwidth is exceeded by multiple MRV streams (as well as the remaining items they already had networked before a D* install?) Does D* then upgrade them to Cat 6, and a gig switch?


Gigabit Ethernet, as it turns out, runs pretty well with properly installed CAT5. A 100Mbit switch typically has at least 100Mbit X the number of ports worth of switch fabric available and most of the newer switches have enough to keep all ports going at full speed in both directions (2 X n X port speed).


> It a home ethernet network it's tough to draw a dividing line between what D*'s responsibility would be, and the homeowner.


I can appreciate that you want DIRECTV to do well, but why must it be that everything always in DIRECTV's best interests? Why should the customer come in a distant second?

In the grand scheme, it all comes down to the router (assuming everything remains plugged in). The router going down is going to take the DECA network with it. The frequency of switch failures is relatively rare and if one goes bad, it can usually be replaced in a matter of minutes or hours. No tools are required, no service trucks need to roll. You can tell it is bad because the lights are out or they're flashing hysterically.

I get that DIRECTV would rather the world forget about DIRECTV2PC in favor of whatever the next big thing is and we've already heard hints from the big guy about Wi-fi for use with portable devices.

KISS is the principle that should be applied and it doesn't get much simpler than current loop.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Don's right about his situation. But for the other 99.999% of DIRECTV customers, no need to go to the expense or the trouble to network them with Ethernet.


Let's talk about expense.

Which is really the more expensive technology on a per client or per LAN basis?

Which is the most flexible in the long run and has the least likely chance of being obsolete?

Is RF the future of transmitting content going forward?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Gigabit Ethernet, as it turns out, runs pretty well with properly installed CAT5. A 100Mbit switch typically has at least 100Mbit X the number of ports worth of switch fabric available and most of the newer switches have enough to keep all ports going at full speed in both directions (2 X n X port speed).I can appreciate that you want DIRECTV to do well, but why must it be that everything always in DIRECTV's best interests? Why should the customer come in a distant second?


Assumes an Ethernet network exists or will be purchased. Assumes sufficient router which cannot be guaranteed.



> In the grand scheme, it all comes down to the router (assuming everything remains plugged in). The router going down is going to take the DECA network with it. The frequency of switch failures is relatively rare and if one goes bad, it can usually be replaced in a matter of minutes or hours. No tools are required, no service trucks need to roll. You can tell it is bad because the lights are out or they're flashing hysterically.


For MRV DECA can run without an Internet link altogether. DECA most certainly doesn't require a router. As for "replaced in minutes or hours?" you simply cannot assume that people either have a spare router or live minutes from a store that does. Also you cannot assume that everyone even knows how to troubleshoot that. Your comment is so wrong on so many levels.



> I get that DIRECTV would rather the world forget about DIRECTV2PC in favor of whatever the next big thing is and we've already heard hints from the big guy about Wi-fi for use with portable devices.
> 
> KISS is the principle that should be applied and it doesn't get much simpler than current loop.


Here you are right about KISS, but how is putting in both coax and twisted pair simpler than putting in just coax?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Let's talk about expense.
> 
> Which is really the more expensive technology on a per client or per LAN basis?


Yes let's. Please explain how it is cheaper to put in two technologies (coax & twisted pair) rather than one?

You can only do this if you make invalid assumptions. Remember, most customers do NOT have nice and tidy home networks in place.



> Which is the most flexible in the long run and has the least likely chance of being obsolete?


Flexible for what? DECA for DIRECTV has the most likely chance of being supported since folks can be trained on one thing. Also who would've willing to let DIRECTV techs modify their router even if the were trained to deal with it.

Obsolete? Most people favor WiFi these days over twisted pair. Ethernet in the sense we're talking is already becoming obsolete.



> Is RF the future of transmitting content going forward?


As long as folks aren't using fiber inside the home I'd say, "Why yes. Yes it is."


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> Gigabit Ethernet, as it turns out, runs pretty well with properly installed CAT5. A 100Mbit switch typically has at least 100Mbit X the number of ports worth of switch fabric available and most of the newer switches have enough to keep all ports going at full speed in both directions (2 X n X port speed).I can appreciate that you want DIRECTV to do well, but why must it be that everything always in DIRECTV's best interests? Why should the customer come in a distant second?
> 
> In the grand scheme, it all comes down to the router (assuming everything remains plugged in). The router going down is going to take the DECA network with it. The frequency of switch failures is relatively rare and if one goes bad, it can usually be replaced in a matter of minutes or hours. No tools are required, no service trucks need to roll. You can tell it is bad because the lights are out or they're flashing hysterically.
> 
> ...


Let's be clear; I have no interest in D* doing well. I am a consumer and care about my best interests. And you're incorrect; in an all ethernet household (which you're referring to) Cat 5 (not Cat 5e) will not do well as your gig backbone.

In any case your argument has the fallacy that you're items are simpler to install and have a lower fail rate. Since you're using your opinion as fact (repeatedly in this thread I might add) your arguments do not hold water.

FYI -- there are many situations (with DECA) where a router can "go down" and MRV will still operate. You might know this if you had DECA. This is clearly not the case with ethernet.

You have not answered any of my previous questions in regard to how a single ethernet infrastructure would handle Sat, OTA, Cable Modem, MRV, and the multititude of items a customer has on the LAN. Where is the demarcation point(s), and how does the business model work?

It would be nice to have a logical argument about the subject, but that's just not forthcoming apparently. It's too bad that the "customer would come in a distant second" in your model. Or that the amount of switch failures is too high, and bandwidth too low to accomodate everything necessary for a full ethernet infrastructure to work. In the end let's apply KISS and keep MRV on a separate infrastructure with less cabling to keep customers happy. See; these fallacy argument works both way Harsh -- the same things can be said about ethernet that you've said about DECA.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> ...Here you are right about KISS, but how is putting in both coax and twisted pair simpler than putting in just coax?


This is what I'm waiting to hear; does coax still exist in the OP's world, or is everything ethernet?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Assumes sufficient router which cannot be guaranteed.


DECA also assumes a sufficient router (and perhaps a switch) unless the installer screws you out of your Internet connection.


> Here you are right about KISS, but how is putting in both coax and twisted pair simpler than putting in just coax?


Running two cables is not much different from running one. Ethernet may require a little more time to terminate but it doesn't require a DECA hardware for every client; not a negligible cost item whether it is built in or external.

Is this about value to the customer or is it all about value to DIRECTV?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Running two cables is not much different from running one.



I find is shocking you would not know this is totally false, especially since this must be the umpteenth time you've attempted to twist those facts, and many here have pointed this out repeatedly. 

The vast majority of homes that have cable runs in the home have 1 run to rooms. The addition of a second run adds both significant cost and additional efforts to support dual runs. Even a caveman knows it.


> Is this about value to the customer or is it all about value to DIRECTV?


Having DECA installed is less costly and much less hassle than running dual coax on multi-levels of a home - so the *obvious* answer is DECA is better for the Consumer (and DirecTv just happens to have a simplified install process as a side benefit).

Since you are a Dish customer, and clearly have no WHDS (MRV) and/or DECA infrastructure firsthand knowledge, perhaps you might consider just accepting the fact that the many others here who have such firsthand experience might just know alot more about this topic than those who are outsiders to DirecTV's technology.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> You have not answered any of my previous questions in regard to how a single ethernet infrastructure would handle Sat, OTA, Cable Modem, MRV, and the multititude of items a customer has on the LAN. Where is the demarcation point(s), and how does the business model work?


Generally speaking, you plug it in and it works. Those who are using (or have used) Ethernet for MRV will tell you so.

Demarc points don't make sense where everything is essentially the same. You don't need to label an Ethernet jack as being for one purpose or another as they all serve the same purpose. You can choose to group connections by switch, but you don't have to.

Understand that most don't care, outside of curiosity, how DIRECTV does what they do. How they do things their problem and I'm not convinced that DECA offers as much relief as you suggest. Further, I'm not convinced that there's a huge difference between "supported" and "unsupported".


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Oh you missed the promo then. The Ethernet clan will become a major force in next seasons Game of Thrones:lol:

Don "sorry these low sliders just beg to be swung at" Bolton



dsw2112 said:


> Don -- a clearly coherent post indeed. It seems the OP's argument has sidetracked into confusing places... I think I was lost for good when it was insinuated that DECA/MOCA is competing to take Ethernet's "throne."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> This is what I'm waiting to hear; does coax still exist in the OP's world, or is everything ethernet?


In the OP's world, coax carries a full cable of TV programming including OTA, FM and satellite as well as a modulated backfeed to the rest of the home. There is little room for anything else.

He has a cable connection that goes direct to the dining room for lifeline cable and high speed Internet that could use MoCA at the higher frequencies but not DECA.

If any provider offered a full palette of OTA, I may be able to make room but that's not currently the case if I want to keep access to RetroTV and some of the other less popular OTA diversions.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> In the OP's world, coax carries a full cable of TV programming including OTA, FM and satellite as well as a modulated backfeed to the rest of the home. There is little room for anything else.
> 
> He has a cable connection that goes direct to the dining room for lifeline cable and high speed Internet that could use MoCA at the higher frequencies but not DECA.
> 
> If any provider offered a full palette of OTA, I may be able to make room but that's not currently the case if I want to keep access to RetroTV and some of the other less popular OTA diversions.


What's the likelyhood that someone has that much going over their coax?

Mike


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> DECA also assumes a sufficient router (and perhaps a switch) unless the installer screws you out of your Internet connection.


DECA makes no assumption about a router .. This is the point you are missing. Whole Home will work just fine if it is NEVER attached to a router. It is true that TV Apps, YouTube, some VOD, etc. will not be available without an Internet connection, but the new Wireless DECA adapter is actually even easier than any other method when the customer already has WiFi in their home.



> Running two cables is not much different from running one. Ethernet may require a little more time to terminate but it doesn't require a DECA hardware for every client; not a negligible cost item whether it is built in or external.


It requires the installer to understand BOTH Ethernet and coax installation processes. It requires the installer to carry two sets of cabling. It could double the installation time related to networking. Oh, and when the customer has problems, it requires two sets of processes (one of which includes a wide variety of hardware devices) to troubleshoot.



> Is this about value to the customer or is it all about value to DIRECTV?


Ah .. you are making the assumption that EVERY customer would be better off with Ethernet setups. This is a poor assumption. I've met many people who would be better off with less wiring behind their TV (That could care less about any technical efficiency). People are not equal.

And if you want to reach into the "technical" land .. how many techies want DIRECTV touching their home networking gear. probably none.

You're generalizing way too much .. The overwhelming evidence of posters at DBSTalk is that DECA is the preferred choice .. and this is amongst techies. There are exceptions and (in Don's case) considerations for extreme circumstances. But the system should be easy for ALL .. The exceptions can be dealt with on an individual basis.

:shrug:


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Plug it into what? Most homeowners either do not have any form of Ethernet networking or they have wireless.

Direct engineered the MRV stream based upon lowest common denominator for the capable equipment already in the wild. Non DVRs have little memory and no disk for buffering meaning wired is required. And if you are already running a wire and it has the capacity and capability?

Supported vs Unsupported really depends on whom you are. Knowledge users (OK tech geeks) you are right, we've diagnosed, and corrected before the on hold music has finished playing.

But all too often because we travel in social circles and our peers all are in a similar technology space as us, it's easy to forget that there is a huge percentage of the populace that just turn it on and expect it to work. For them when it doesn't work they have no idea what to do. For them big difference between supported and unsupported.

It is very easy to get caught up in our comprehension of the world and forget there's a vast majority out there who might ask such questions as "where do I git me an HDee and I cable"? as they are in the snack food section of *Mart.

I run unsupported on primarily Ethernet with a small client only DECA cloud due to sizing and number of tuners. I have in some cases 3 coax lines in a room to handle the landscape as the technology changed.

Your basic points about scalability, and OTA frequencies I've lived through. Yep you are right in these contexts but for such a small segment of the subscriber base as to make it commercially unfeasible to service our specific requirements.

Don "time to hit the weight room" Bolton



harsh said:


> Generally speaking, you plug it in and it works. Those who are using (or have used) Ethernet for MRV will tell you so.
> 
> Demarc points don't make sense where everything is essentially the same. You don't need to label an Ethernet jack as being for one purpose or another as they all serve the same purpose. You can choose to group connections by switch, but you don't have to.
> 
> Understand that most don't care, outside of curiosity, how DIRECTV does what they do. How they do things their problem and I'm not convinced that DECA offers as much relief as you suggest. Further, I'm not convinced that there's a huge difference between "supported" and "unsupported".


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Understand that most don't care, outside of curiosity, how DIRECTV does what they do. How they do things their problem and I'm not convinced that DECA offers as much relief as you suggest. Further, I'm not convinced that there's a huge difference between "supported" and "unsupported".


Yeah, we get that you're not convince  .. but the fact is every alternate solution you've offered is actually more complicated EXCEPT when network cabling, ports, and know-how already exist. I trust that for you personally, that is the case. However, to assume that is the case with every customer is simply fooling yourself.

Cat5e is not cheap. If you don't have it already and in sufficient supply, it would need to be purchased. A proper switch can be obtained for a fair price, but it's not free. There is time involved in getting wires to all locations .. Again, not free - it either costs you time or dollars if you hire someone else to do it. Not ever customer is able-bodied enough to install the cat5 solution.

The only time that Ethernet is the better choice is when all the parts are already in place for some other reason .. AND .. the person dealing with it knows what to do. There have been some of those cases and I've suggested that they keep their existing setup. For everyone else $49, $99, $199 .. All of those prices are great (some got it free) .. All receivers connected to the Internet, ready for MRV. Oh, and someone else does the work for you.

It doesn't get easier than that. That is KISS ..


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What's the likelyhood that someone has that much going over their coax?


Well the percentage of DIRECTV folks utilizing OTA is very tiny .. certainly single digits and I'm pretty sure it's sub-1% based on what I here from installers. So right off the bat the maximum pool is around the 200,000 customer range. Then it's going to be only a fraction of that ..

Let's design the process for 19,000,000 customers knowing that all of the extra cost and work is only going to be used by a fraction of 200,000 customers. Exceptions are just that .. Exceptions. DIRECTV actually has people that help with crazy installations. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these folks got involved with Don's installation.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Amazing that on a beautiful holiday weekend that any energy would be spent debating with the doggie. 

It's obviously crystal clear fact that DECA is perfect for DirecTV. It's DirecTV's implementation of MOCA, which is clearly the direction worldwide for most leading edge providers. 

And for those with high-end setups that prefer Ethernet, it works also. 

Best of both worlds. 

Now back to celebrating the 4th, no time for doggie sitting.

Happy 4th everyone.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> Generally speaking, you plug it in and it works. Those who are using (or have used) Ethernet for MRV will tell you so.


In addition to knowing nothing about using MRV, he obviously hasn't read the threads about the wonderful 'plug and play' home networks!

I think Harsh needs to work for the 'geek' squad. Or maybe he does.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Amazing that on a beautiful holiday weekend that any energy would be spent debating with the doggie.
> 
> It's obviously crystal clear fact that DECA is perfect for DirecTV. It's DirecTV's implementation of MOCA, which is clearly the direction worldwide for most leading edge providers.
> 
> ...


Thank you and Happy 4th to you as well. May the boom-booms only be planned... Remember to practice safe boom-booms.

Turns out the Tibbers are doggie sitting for the grandtibbers. Imagine going camping but not taking the dogs?

But in betwixt the chores outdoors and possible movie, I'm happily watching DIRECTV HD on my MoCA network with Ethernet sidebars. Skyping to family in France.

MoCA thought so much of DECA they included it into the specification. The whole point is to have alternatives for customers. DIRECTV installs on option, allows many others. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Okay, so by my reckoning we have on one side, harsh. On the other, we have the entire rest of the world. Or more specifically, pretty much everyone else in the world who actually HAS Directv service and who use DECA every day without issue.

How long do we (the collective DBSTalk "we" who are interested in actual logical discussion) have to put up with harsh's pathetic attempts to argue simply for the sake of arguing? :nono:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> Okay, so by my reckoning we have on one side, harsh. On the other, we have the entire rest of the world. Or more specifically, pretty much everyone else in the world who actually HAS Directv service and who use DECA every day without issue.
> 
> How long do we (the collective DBSTalk "we" who are interested in actual logical discussion) have to put up with harsh's pathetic attempts to argue simply for the sake of arguing? :nono:


As long as you keep posting in threads...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What's the likelyhood that someone has that much going over their coax?


100% (unless I'm being denied citizenship in the human race based on what television services I do or don't subscribe to). 

The likelihood that a random DIRECTV customer has OTA set up it is considerably less than 100% but I would imagine there are quite a few who do; especially those with SD receivers connected to HDTVs.

Most of these sharing technologies are essentially denied to the DIRECTV customers with DECA so the chances in that minority are vanishingly slim (though apparently not impossible).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> Okay, so by my reckoning we have on one side, harsh. On the other, we have the entire rest of the world.


If this thread or this forum were representative of the world's population, you might have a point.

The closest analog I can muster is "religious xenophobia" where there is only one right way and that is the way of The Church (DIRECTV). All others can righteously be dismissed as unbelievers.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Further, I'm not convinced that there's a huge difference between "supported" and "unsupported".





harsh said:


> Most of these sharing technologies are essentially denied to the DIRECTV customers with DECA so the chances in that minority are vanishingly slim (though apparently not impossible).


But they are not "denied". MRV over ethernet is allowed in an officially "unsupported" mode which could be used in those cases where a seperate technology is using the DECA frequencies. If your first statement is indeed true, then it would seem you are arguing against restrictions that do not exist.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> If this thread or this forum were representative of the world's population, you might have a point.
> 
> The closest analog I can muster is "religious xenophobia" where there is only one right way and that is the way of The Church (DIRECTV). All others can righteously be dismissed as unbelievers.


!rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling

OK, you have said some outlandish things, but this one is great. The funny thing is that this is a DECA vs. Ethernet discussion. The analog you are talking about it "Fear of DECA" That's the xenophobia. DECA is the "foreigner" in this case. You're the one not embracing a different technology and sticking with the old "Ethernet" religion as the only way.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> 100% (unless I'm being denied citizenship in the human race based on what television services I do or don't subscribe to).


I know for a fact that 100% is incorrect .. Your original comment which Mike was talking about is this:



harsh said:


> In [Don's] world, coax carries a full cable of TV programming including OTA, FM and satellite as well as a modulated backfeed to the rest of the home. There is little room for anything else.


Mike asks "who does that?" and your response is "100%" .. Baseless.

I do not run OTA over my coax, I do not run FM, I do not run any form of Cable TV or Internet and I don't backfeed anything in my house. The only thing I run at all is ..

SWiM signals .. OR .. Legacy Sat Signals depending on the node I'm connecting to. All coax in the house connects to my SWiM-16. Oh, there is a power adapter for that and I utilize DECA across all SWiM-connected devices.

But All of the other things which you claim are utilized by 100% .. nope, none of those are utilized by me and, quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that all of them being in use on one cable is rare to never across all of America. You saying 100% doesn't make it remotely true.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> 100% (unless I'm being denied citizenship in the human race based on what television services I do or don't subscribe to).
> 
> The likelihood that a random DIRECTV customer has OTA set up it is considerably less than 100% but I would imagine there are quite a few who do; especially those with SD receivers connected to HDTVs.
> 
> Most of these sharing technologies are essentially denied to the DIRECTV customers with DECA so the chances in that minority are vanishingly slim (though apparently not impossible).


If they have OTA diplexed in then they have a non approved installation. This is not DIRECTV's fault or issue. DIRECTV made a new technology that works amazing and works in the environment that they designed.

Also the people who use SWM and diplex OTA is even smaller than that so people with 2 lines to a DVR could still use their OTA, this is what I did when I went to SWM, and everything was the same.

This is the same argument that people had in 1990 when cable announced they were going to test internet in Chicago at the same time that Ameritech (Illinois Bell) announced they were going to launch DSL. People said that with twisted wire you would always have greater bandwidth than the restraints of coax.

You might as well have said that DIRECTV should have used Fiber runs for everything.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> In the OP's world, coax carries a full cable of TV programming including OTA, FM and satellite as well as a modulated backfeed to the rest of the home. There is little room for anything else.
> 
> He has a cable connection that goes direct to the dining room for lifeline cable and high speed Internet that could use MoCA at the higher frequencies but not DECA.
> 
> If any provider offered a full palette of OTA, I may be able to make room but that's not currently the case if I want to keep access to RetroTV and some of the other less popular OTA diversions.


So coax isn't going away in your world, you merely want to be the deciding factor in what's allowed on it. Well good news! You don't need to utilize D* or DECA, and as I understand you do not do so already. As a consumer I'm a deciding factor as well, and like most folks I don't want to run a second cable to utilize an all ethernet environment for MRV.

In your world coax is stacked with frequencies I have no use for. In that world I'm "marginalized" (your word) where I cannot use DECA. There are far more folks that would accept SWM/DECA than would use your solution. It seems that you don't mind marginalizing this segment of the population to suit your viewpoint. This is why many posts seem to reflect an alterior motive on your part...

Choice is good, and folks have the choice to MRV over ethernet. Since ethernet is "plug and play" folks should have no problems supporting their setup. Those receivers that cannot use, or do not have an ethernet port can use a DECA to transition to ethernet. This DECA is not much different than a NIC which makes a similar transition.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> 100% (unless I'm being denied citizenship in the human race based on what television services I do or don't subscribe to).
> 
> <snip>


Ok. If you were the entire population then yes, the likelihood would be 100%. 

My point was the percentage of homes with coax that use the coax for more than one application is so small as to be insignificant. IOW, you assertion that the use of DECA limits other uses of that coax it absolutely true and at the same time a non-issue. And, in this case, the majority is so large as to effectively be 100%. :grin:

Mike


----------

