DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Mentor
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi,

Been a while since I posted, but I couldn't really find my answer searching through previous posts (which is kind of unusual, as normally almost every topic has been discussed on this awesome forum, and I can usually find what I need - thanks!!).

Anyway, I have two HD DVRs (HR20 and HR21), both networked over my ethernet (HR21 hardwired from access point, HR20 hard wired to Wirless N bridge). I have been able to get On Demand, as well as other internet features on both recievers, and have recently convinced DTV to set up the unsupported WHDVR over my network. I do not currently have a SWM, and have two coax sat cables going to each reciever.

My question is this: If I want to add another receiver (HD DVR or HD reciever) to my home, I will need to install a SWM - this I know and understand (Currently only 4 lines coming off my current "old school" multiswitch). However, will I need to install DECA with the added SWM to keep my connectivity and WHDVR service? Or can I just add the SWM to get more sat connections, and continue to run over my ethernet network (obviously adding the new reciever to this network)?

Any help with this is appreciated. Again, great forum and great information.

Vic
 

·
This Space for Sale
Joined
·
7,466 Posts
vict said:
Currently only 4 lines coming off my current "old school" multiswitch.
What multiswitch do you have? Do you have any empty outputs? My previous one could output 8 cables, which I used until I upgraded and went to 11 tuners.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I currently have a 4 output multiswitch (not SWM, obviously). I thought of just getting a bigger switch (with more ouputs) and just running two lines to the new reciever (like the others), but since the place I wanted to put the new reciever is upstairs and at the opposite end of the house from the switch, I thought it would be easier to install a SWM, and spit the signal closer to the room where I want to install it (likely close to one of the other recievers). That cuts my cable run by over half, and makes it so I only have to run one cable (both plusses).

I just need to know if I run that setup, will I need to install DECA with the SWM to maintain my connectivity, or can I use a SWM and continue using an ethernet connection to all my recievers including the new one.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
You will be able to use your current whole home/ internet ethernet connectivity with SWM. Your already listed as a "unsupported" Whole home so your good to go there. Have you called Directv to see what they could offer you? A SWM could cost you more that what Directv could do for you. For example a SWM16 could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 bucks. They may be able to do it for $49. I would give them a call.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
42,754 Posts
vict said:
I currently have a 4 output multiswitch (not SWM, obviously). I thought of just getting a bigger switch (with more ouputs) and just running two lines to the new reciever (like the others), but since the place I wanted to put the new reciever is upstairs and at the opposite end of the house from the switch, I thought it would be easier to install a SWM, and spit the signal closer to the room where I want to install it (likely close to one of the other recievers). That cuts my cable run by over half, and makes it so I only have to run one cable (both plusses).

I just need to know if I run that setup, will I need to install DECA with the SWM to maintain my connectivity, or can I use a SWM and continue using an ethernet connection to all my recievers including the new one.
You should be "fine" moving to a SWiM and keeping your ethernet. DECA is used for networking, but it is more of an "add on" to a SWiM system, since it needs a SWiM to work, while SWiM doesn't need DECA.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
42,754 Posts
Alebob911 said:
You will be able to use your current whole home/ internet ethernet connectivity with SWM. Your already listed as a "unsupported" Whole home so your good to go there. Have you called Directv to see what they could offer you? A SWM could cost you more that what Directv could do for you. For example a SWM16 could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 bucks. They may be able to do it for $49. I would give them a call.
"Something as cheap" as a SWiM LNB would handle the tuner count here.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
David Ortiz said:
The H25 doesn't have an ethernet port, so you may want to stay away from that model.
This is good to know. Thanks.

Should I assume any DVRs/Receivers newer than H24/HR24 will not have an ethernet port, and will require SWM and DECA to connect?

Sorry, I'm not as up on the newer recievers as I should be.......:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,093 Posts
SO far only the H25 Doesn't have one is the only "newest" receiver that doesn't have one. The H20 doesn't have however it's not the newest one it is one of the first D* HD recivers.
 

·
Save the Clock Tower!!
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
vict said:
This is good to know. Thanks.

Should I assume any DVRs/Receivers newer than H24/HR24 will not have an ethernet port, and will require SWM and DECA to connect?

Sorry, I'm not as up on the newer recievers as I should be.......:rolleyes:
It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
WestDC said:
The H20 doesn't have however it's not the newest one it is one of the first D* HD recivers.
That seems a little weird, since the HR20s do have a port. Although, I remember, at the time when I got that unit, there was no reason to have a port anyway :). Yeah, it's an old unit. A workhorse though.....
 

·
1*
Joined
·
10,289 Posts
"vict" said:
I'm assuming that means you can only connect via DECA for those units without an ethernet port, correct?
That is correct.

- Merg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,093 Posts
vict said:
That seems a little weird, since the HR20s do have a port. Although, I remember, at the time when I got that unit, there was no reason to have a port anyway :). Yeah, it's an old unit. A workhorse though.....
I still have my frist one I use it to out put PIP/ to my HD TV's, controlled by a RF remote. :)

It doesn't need a deca (no rj45 port) - I have a Band stop filter attached to it.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
David Ortiz said:
It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.
This is an interesting choice by DTV, and one that I think will hurt their business in the long run.

I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum on the board, so forgive the dull, thumping sound as I beat this dead horse. However, it seems weird that DTV is basically forcing consumers to use their networking hardware to connect. Also, it's not really very innovative technology as far as I can tell, as it's basically a powerline network, but used over coaxial. At least with powerline, I don't have to add power to it (another connection, more wires, etc).

I mean, you don't see Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming media or On Demand providers requiring use of their routers or other hardware to get their service. Just a live internet connection.

This wouldn't be much of an issue for me if the price matched what I thought it was worth. However, to me it seems excessive to pay $199 for this connectivity. I know other people have noted that you're basically paying for only the parts here, but in my research I've found it will cost me about $120 or less to purchase all the DECA/SWM equiment online. So even if I was going with DECA, I likely woudn't order it through DTV and save $80. I was able to get the same functionality over my own network with the purchase of a $60 bridge.

Lastly, the flexibility offered by using your own network seems to be better. For instance, as far as I can tell the DECA solution only offers one connection per, so I would still need some kind of ethernet switch, bridge, whatever to run my connected Blu-Ray and X-Box. So, two functionally different network connections to the same network at the same place?

This all being said, I definitely realize a lot of people out there can't or don't want to "DIY", so a simple networking solution from DTV is great for them to get all the functionality they want. But why limit to only that solution. Why not give the rest of us flexibility in how we connect? Is there something that the DECA network will give me in the future that will make me want to switch to DECA?

End Rant.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with DTV, I just thought this move is a little out of character.
 

·
Save the Clock Tower!!
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
vict said:
This is an interesting choice by DTV, and one that I think will hurt their business in the long run.

I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum on the board, so forgive the dull, thumping sound as I beat this dead horse. However, it seems weird that DTV is basically forcing consumers to use their networking hardware to connect. Also, it's not really very innovative technology as far as I can tell, as it's basically a powerline network, but used over coaxial. At least with powerline, I don't have to add power to it (another connection, more wires, etc).

I mean, you don't see Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming media or On Demand providers requiring use of their routers or other hardware to get their service. Just a live internet connection.

This wouldn't be much of an issue for me if the price matched what I thought it was worth. However, to me it seems excessive to pay $199 for this connectivity. I know other people have noted that you're basically paying for only the parts here, but in my research I've found it will cost me about $120 or less to purchase all the DECA/SWM equiment online. So even if I was going with DECA, I likely woudn't order it through DTV and save $80. I was able to get the same functionality over my own network with the purchase of a $60 bridge.

Lastly, the flexibility offered by using your own network seems to be better. For instance, as far as I can tell the DECA solution only offers one connection per, so I would still need some kind of ethernet switch, bridge, whatever to run my connected Blu-Ray and X-Box. So, two functionally different network connections to the same network at the same place?

This all being said, I definitely realize a lot of people out there can't or don't want to "DIY", so a simple networking solution from DTV is great for them to get all the functionality they want. But why limit to only that solution. Why not give the rest of us flexibility in how we connect? Is there something that the DECA network will give me in the future that will make me want to switch to DECA?

End Rant.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with DTV, I just thought this move is a little out of character.
Again, "going forward", Whole-Home is included in new installations (if configured in the installation order). So the $199 is for existing customers. If most future installs are a combination of new HD receivers and an HMC server, the boxes are already on their own network. A single connection from the HMC to the home network is all that's needed to bridge the whole system to the internet.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top