# What are BOLT's MoCA capabilities...?



## krkaufman

Based on seeing *"MoCA bridge 2.0 ... Built-in"* in the BOLT's specs sheet, I *thought* that the new BOLT line would have MoCA capabilities similar to that of the Roamio Plus/Pro and Premiere 4-tuner models... that it could either connect to or create (be the controller for) a MoCA network.

However, TCFer mjcxp alerted earlier (post1, post2) that the TiVo support site indicates that a BOLT may require a MoCA adapter to create the MoCA network, to which the BOLT could then connect, similar to the current v1 & v2 Mini.

See the updated-for-BOLT *'How to connect your TiVo® box to your network and the Internet' TiVo How-to* for the specific text.

_Option 2: MoCA connection

Create a MoCA network

If your router is in a different room from your DVR, OR if you are using one of the following DVRs:

*TiVo BOLT*
TiVo Roamio (4-tuner)
TiVo Premiere (2-tuner)
1. *Connect a coax cable from the wall outlet to the MoCA network adapter's Coax In port.*
...
6. Congratulations! You've created a MoCA home network! To connect your TiVo boxes to your network, see Join an existing MoCA network.​_​So the BOLT has been thrown-in w/ the other DVRs incapable of creating a MoCA network.

As for connecting to a MoCA network, the support page is as expected, with the BOLT grouped with the other MoCA-capable devices:
_Join an existing MoCA network

Use this option when you already have a functioning MoCA network in your home.


TiVo BOLT
TiVo Roamio Plus/Pro
TiVo Premiere 4/XL4/Elite
TiVo Mini
_​
I'm *really* hoping this is simply a support documentation blunder, 'cause this would definitely be a bridge too short relative to what was expected from the BOLT line.


----------



## socrplyr

I would be very surprised if this wasn't just an error on the webpage. I don't know that I would call it a blunder, but I wouldn't get worked up until someone says that it doesn't work. I am interested to see if connecting from MoCA to Ethernet still works. I think that was not an intended function, but didn't hurt anything either.


----------



## krkaufman

socrplyr said:


> I would be very surprised if this wasn't just an error on the webpage. I don't know that I would call it a blunder,


Ah, so it may be an error but not a blunder. Check! 



socrplyr said:


> ... I wouldn't get worked up until someone says that it doesn't work.


Well, that *is* the point of the thread... someone *has* said it won't work -- TiVo support -- and so this thread was intended to make that contention clear and to elicit the experiences of those receiving the new BOLTs.



socrplyr said:


> I am interested to see if connecting from MoCA to Ethernet still works. I think that was not an intended function, but didn't hurt anything either.


It was definitely an "intended" function for the Plus/Pro and Premiere 4s, as that's the MoCA bridging capability -- though the ability to bridge from MoCA to isolated Ethernet segments certainly wasn't the primary purpose for adding MoCA bridging to these models.

That said, I sure hope it works for the BOLT in the same way, contrary to the current support documentation.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

95% sure the support page is wrong and it belongs with the Plus/Pro/P4/XL4/Elite instructions.


----------



## krkaufman

BigJimOutlaw said:


> 95% sure the support page is wrong and it belongs with the Plus/Pro/P4/XL4/Elite instructions.


Me, too (+/- %s), but wanted it out there for someone with a BOLT to get corrected ASAP.


----------



## krkaufman

Some hubot monitoring TiVo's Facebook page has replied that the BOLT should have the same capability as the Roamio Plus & Pro, creation of the MoCA network -- though I'll still be waiting for confirmation, at this point, from a TCFer who's actually tested the feature.

In the meantime, here's an interesting block of information received from that Facebook entity, both underscoring the BOLT's bridging MoCA capability and providing some new insight re: MoCA 2.0 and Minis:


> To clarify, the BOLT actually has even more MoCA compatibility than previous models - yes, it can create a MoCA network for Minis to connect to. It can do both moCA 1.1 (which minis use) and 2.0 (which is faster, but Minis actually cannot use). To ensure you are making a 1.1 network when setting up a BOLT, be sure to choose a channel between 15 and 29. Anything above 29 will be 2.0 and Minis won't be able to use the signal. (link)


----------



## krkaufman

Oops, I updated too quickly. Here's the latest somewhat *critical update* from my TiVO Facebooker:


> Okay, quick update as to why that verbiage is in place on the website - the bridge is built-in to the BOLT and it will be able to create the MoCA network, but *the broadcasting part may not be active at launch*. That's why the conflicting information is there, and we apologize for the confusion. That said, we'd be happy to toss in a MoCA adapter with a BOLT order if you get one before that activation! (link)


----------



## krkaufman

Final volley and return from TiVo...



> *ME:* Ah, so the support page is correct, at least for the time being, at launch, until the BOLT can realize its full potential. Correct? (link)





> *TiVo:* The Support page is correct for the time being, yes ... (link)


----------



## krkaufman

So, I look forward to hearing from those getting their hands on actual shipped BOLT units.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

So weird. Lol. They really did rush it.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> So, I look forward to hearing from those getting their hands on actual shipped BOLT units.


Even me?


----------



## Dan203

Wow! It's so rushed that MoCa is only half working and OOH streaming is disabled. I can't believe they would ship a box with such fundamental features missing. :down:


----------



## krkaufman

Dan203 said:


> Wow! It's so rushed that MoCa is only half working and OOH streaming is disabled. I can't believe they would ship a box with such fundamental features missing. :down:


Seriously. What I'm really surprised by is that they seem to have kept mum on this MoCA feature holdback, which I would think may substantially affect whole home deployments for new customers.


----------



## Bigg

What a mess. No wonder people are confuzzled!


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> Wow! It's so rushed that MoCa is only half working and OOH streaming is disabled. I can't believe they would ship a box with such fundamental features missing. :down:


Timing pressures? I guess they really wanted it out for this season. In any event it still hands down in better shape than the Premiere was when released. And they are better off with missing features than ones that don't work right.


----------



## Dan203

atmuscarella said:


> Timing pressures? I guess they really wanted it out for this season. In any event it still hands down in better shape than the Premiere was when released. And they are better off with missing features than ones that don't work right.


Most people are going to assume they don't work right when they don't work like they expected. Whether they were intentionally disabled or not.


----------



## krkaufman

atmuscarella said:


> In any event it still *hands down in better shape than the Premiere was* when released. And they are better off with missing features than ones that don't work right.


Well, jury's out on that until we start hearing from those who've taken the plunge.


----------



## embryjim

Just speaking for me... I'd be p*ssed if I got this thing and couldn't set up my MOCA network.



> "That said, we'd be happy to toss in a MoCA adapter with a BOLT order if you get one before that activation!"


Does this mean they'll throw it in for free if I am knowledgeable enough to ask for one? And why should I have to know this? Will they ship me one for free when I discover after the fact that I need it?

This is NOT full disclosure and is a shoddy at best business practice, shame on TIVO. Don't get me wrong I love the technology but obfuscation of this important detail only serves to alienate the very people they are depending on.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> Some hubot monitoring TiVo's Facebook page has replied that the BOLT should have the same capability as the Roamio Plus & Pro, creation of the MoCA network -- though I'll still be waiting for confirmation, at this point, from a TCFer who's actually tested the feature.
> 
> In the meantime, here's an interesting block of information received from that Facebook entity, both underscoring the BOLT's bridging MoCA capability and providing some new insight re: MoCA 2.0 and Minis:





krkaufman said:


> Oops, I updated too quickly. Here's the latest somewhat *critical update* from my TiVO Facebooker:





krkaufman said:


> Final volley and return from TiVo...


I just got off the phone with TiVo "support" to ask for the free MoCA Adapter for the Bolt that I just ordered and she stated (after checking with supervisors) that they aren't doing that and they are working on the software as we speak to have the MoCA working fully in the Bolt by the time any retail customers get them and it should be downloaded when they first connect the Bolt and do Guided Setup on it.

I mentioned the Facebook exchange that krkaufman had with them on TiVo's FB page and she said that's what they were doing for the TiVo Bolt Testers, but they won't have to for retail customers since it'll be ready to download by the time we get them on the 4th or 5th. I said, _"Well what am I going to do when I put the Bolt in and it doesn't download any fix and I'm SOL with my Minis around the house?"_ In response, she just all but guaranteed me that it will be there and ready to download. (The lack of confidence inflected in her voice said otherwise though)

Somehow I *HIGHLY* doubt that!


----------



## HarperVision

embryjim said:


> Just speaking for me... I'd be p*ssed if I got this thing and couldn't set up my MOCA network.
> 
> "That said, we'd be happy to toss in a MoCA adapter with a BOLT order if you get one before that activation!"
> 
> Does this mean they'll throw it in for free if I am knowledgeable enough to ask for one? And why should I have to know this? Will they ship me one for free when I discover after the fact that I need it?
> 
> This is NOT full disclosure and is a shoddy at best business practice, shame on TIVO. Don't get me wrong I love the technology but obfuscation of this important detail only serves to alienate the very people they are depending on.


I did just that....see above. :down:


----------



## krkaufman

embryjim said:


> "That said, we'd be happy to toss in a MoCA adapter with a BOLT order if you get one before that activation!"
> 
> Does this mean they'll throw it in for free if I am knowledgeable enough to ask for one? And why should I have to know this? Will they ship me one for free when I discover after the fact that I need it?


I very much expect that that is what they would do, ship a MoCA adapter out to any new BOLT owner requesting one. I doubt anyone will have any luck trying to force one of the new MoCA 2.0 adapters out of TiVo, though (especially since they're not yet offered by TiVo); they should only expect one of the standard Actiontec ECB2500 units.

And I hope TiVo has enough sense to not charge shipping.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> *I very much expect that that is what they would do, ship a MoCA adapter out to any new BOLT owner requesting one.* I doubt anyone will have any luck trying to force one of the new MoCA 2.0 adapters out of TiVo, though (especially since they're not yet offered by TiVo); they should only expect one of the standard Actiontec ECB2500 units.
> 
> And I hope TiVo has enough sense to not charge shipping.


Nope


----------



## mjcxp

HarperVision said:


> I just got off the phone with TiVo "support" to ask for the free MoCA Adapter for the Bolt that I just ordered and she stated (after checking with supervisors) that they aren't doing that and they are working on the software as we speak to have the MoCA working fully in the Bolt by the time any retail customers get them and it should be downloaded when they first connect the Bolt and do Guided Setup on it.
> 
> I mentioned the Facebook exchange that krkaufman had with them on TiVo's FB page and she said that's what they were doing for the TiVo Bolt Testers, but they won't have to for retail customers since it'll be ready to download by the time we get them on the 4th or 5th. I said, _"Well what am I going to do when I put the Bolt in and it doesn't download any fix and I'm SOL with my Minis around the house?"_ In response, she just all but guaranteed me that it will be there and ready to download. (The lack of confidence inflected in her voice said otherwise though)
> 
> Somehow I *HIGHLY* doubt that!


I was debating about calling and requesting a MoCA adapter but figured it would be a headache. I am glad you confirmed my suspicion.


----------



## krkaufman

HarperVision said:


> I mentioned the Facebook exchange that krkaufman had with them on TiVo's FB page and she said that's what they were doing for the TiVo Bolt Testers, but they won't have to for retail customers since it'll be ready to download by the time we get them on the 4th or 5th. I said, _"Well what am I going to do when I put the Bolt in and it doesn't download any fix and I'm SOL with my Minis around the house?"_ In response, she just all but guaranteed me that it will be there and ready to download.


I'd try hitting-up the Facebook thread where they made the offer.

p.s. Thanks for the update. Glad I'm not dependent on them rushing a solution out.


----------



## embryjim

HarperVision said:


> I just got off the phone with TiVo "support" to ask for the free MoCA Adapter for the Bolt that I just ordered and she stated (after checking with supervisors) that they aren't doing that and they are working on the software as we speak to have the MoCA working fully in the Bolt by the time any retail customers get them and it should be downloaded when they first connect the Bolt and do Guided Setup on it.
> 
> I mentioned the Facebook exchange that krkaufman had with them on TiVo's FB page and she said that's what they were doing for the TiVo Bolt Testers, but they won't have to for retail customers since it'll be ready to download by the time we get them on the 4th or 5th. I said, _"Well what am I going to do when I put the Bolt in and it doesn't download any fix and I'm SOL with my Minis around the house?"_ In response, she just all but guaranteed me that it will be there and ready to download. (The lack of confidence inflected in her voice said otherwise though)
> 
> Somehow I *HIGHLY* doubt that!


Wow, just... Wow. Do they think they're Apple? That we will just believe anything they say? 

I seriously hope this is a non-event but I for one do not like being treated like this, and I'm not even buying one!


----------



## mjcxp

embryjim said:


> Wow, just... Wow. Do they think they're Apple? That we will just believe anything they say?
> 
> I seriously hope this is a non-event but I for one do not like being treated like this, and I'm not even buying one!


It seems pretty obvious that the marketing and sales department lack any communication with each other. I am debating about getting the lifetime but I am a bit worried wondering if TiVo will still be around in five years as it would take that long to reach the break even point.


----------



## embryjim

mjcxp said:


> It seems pretty obvious that the marketing and sales department lack any communication with each other. I am debating about getting the lifetime but I am a bit worried wondering if TiVo will still be around in five years as it would take that long to reach the break even point.


I hate to say it but its almost like the teenager who begins to act like a jerk to make the eventual separation from family easier. As soon as Tivo's patents expire they will sell their intellectual property to the MSO's and we'll all have cableco boxes "powered by Tivo!"


----------



## mjcxp

Just got a reply from Margret:

"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! The BOLT does have the built in bridge."


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

This is what I heard -- The Bolt might not ship with moca fully working for everyone. When you first connect (use ethernet or wi-fi if moca doesn't work), the downloaded software will fix it up. 

^^ Per above, as Margret says it will do bridging.


----------



## HarperVision

mjcxp said:


> Just got a reply from Margret: "Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! The BOLT does have the built in bridge."


Is that a bridge only to ethernet, or will it also bridge wifi to moca?


----------



## snerd

BigJimOutlaw said:


> This is what I heard -- The Bolt might not ship with moca fully working for everyone. When you first connect (use ethernet or wi-fi if moca doesn't work), the downloaded software will fix it up.
> 
> ^^ Per above, as Margret says it will do bridging.


Her statement could be interpreted merely as "the hardware is there".

It would really suck if it turned out that they are having trouble getting it to work due to a hardware issue rather than a software issue.


----------



## krkaufman

mjcxp said:


> Just got a reply from Margret:
> 
> *"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! The BOLT does have the built in bridge."*





snerd said:


> Her statement could be interpreted merely as "the hardware is there".


That's what I was thinking, as well, but figured we'd learn soon enough from TCFers getting their hands on the actual product. And I took it as more of the "all in" gambling vibe of the BOLT release -- maybe she knows there's a potential issue that they're rushing to fix but is bluffing as to its existence.



snerd said:


> It would really suck if it turned out that they are having trouble getting it to work due to a hardware issue rather than a software issue.


For BOLT customers, TiVo... and all the customers who rely on TiVo remaining profitable.

edit: p.s. All that said, it still strikes me as odd that TiVo would have invested the effort in publishing a support page with the broken state of the BOLT MoCA bridging in mind. Eh, maybe the page will be magically updated on the official ship/release date, Oct 4th.


----------



## embryjim

This is insane, why in the world would Tivo monkey around with, and then make it hard to determine, if there is a fundamental piece of the hardware missing/malfunctioning? Its not like this is some aspect of the machine that few people use, I either need an external MoCA adapter or I don't; which is it Tivo? I have to believe they don't think so, because why would they not include this functionality? It *appears* its included in all models now except the base Roamio and the OTA Roamio. But they sure aren't saying very confidently that I don't need one.


----------



## Dan203

We'll know in a couple days when people actually get their hands on them. If they don't work as expected you can rest assured someone one report it here.


----------



## embryjim

Dan203 said:


> We'll know in a couple days when people actually get their hands on them. If they don't work as expected you can rest assured someone one report it here.


I have never been so worked up about something I really have no intention of buying. I just need to calm down


----------



## HarperVision

Yeah, TiVo definitely has a few head scratchers whenever they do anything. It's almost like having that hot, sexy, nice girlfriend that does a lot of nice things for you and you enjoy being with, but there's always that one or two things that she does that makes you go *"whaaaaa......?*  *"* in your mind and that makes you consider and actually sometimes breakup because you just don't get it.


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> I mentioned the Facebook exchange that krkaufman had with them on TiVo's FB page and she said that's what they were doing for the TiVo Bolt Testers, but they won't have to for retail customers since it'll be ready to download by the time we get them on the 4th or 5th.


Good god. That's like lean taken to an extreme, where we have JIT software delivery! Microsoft doesn't really RTM the software anymore, as they do rolling updates, but there weren't major features completely missing from Windows 10 when they did the soft pseudo-RTM.

This thing was clearly super rushed.


----------



## embryjim

Now that I think about it, basically the Bolt must be a Mini on steroids. Based on what the MoCA instructions state, it can't create a MoCA network but can join one through its coax port, same as the Mini. And the back of the Bolt looks eerily like the back of the Mini... RF jack->A/V jack->HDMI->Ethernet->USB are all in the same configuration. So... if the Bolt will eventually be able to create a MoCA network it would seem with a little hardware tweak (and the promised software push for the Bolt) the Mini could create a MoCA network as well. Perhaps its cheaper to make a Mini platform and add the tuners and other stuff to make it a full fledged Tivo? Good grief, I may just have to buy one so I can take it apart and see.

Could this be Tivo's plan? To aggravate me to the point I go out and buy one of their products? Well played, Tivo... well played.


----------



## aaronwt

embryjim said:


> Now that I think about it, basically the Bolt must be a Mini on steroids. Based on what the MoCA instructions state, it can't create a MoCA network but can join one through its coax port, same as the Mini. And the back of the Bolt looks eerily like the back of the Mini... RF jack->A/V jack->HDMI->Ethernet->USB are all in the same configuration. So... if the Bolt will eventually be able to create a MoCA network it would seem with a little hardware tweak (and the promised software push for the Bolt) the Mini could create a MoCA network as well. Perhaps its cheaper to make a Mini platform and add the tuners and other stuff to make it a full fledged Tivo? Good grief, I may just have to buy one so I can take it apart and see.
> 
> Could this be Tivo's plan? To aggravate me to the point I go out and buy one of their products? Well played, Tivo... well played.


The Mini uses a different chipset. One that doesn't have bridging capability. WHile the Bolt does use a chipset with Bridging capability.


----------



## embryjim

aaronwt said:


> The Mini uses a different chipset. One that doesn't have bridging capability. WHile the Bolt does use a chipset with Bridging capability.


Fair enough, I have not researched the chipsets. If they could use the same chipset it would seem cost effective to do so and disable the bridging capability in the Mini.


----------



## embryjim

So it looks like we have a few in people's hands. Can anyone confirm the MoCA capabilities? Did your Bolt do a software upgrade? Can it create, as well as, join a MoCA network?


----------



## mjcl

My bolt worked fine with MoCA to access the internet as soon as it started up. Guided Setup did find a software update, and it's installing it now. Once the software update finishes I can test and see if bridging works.

I'm not sure what the difference between creating and joining a MoCA network is, though. I had a few existing MoCA devices (Mini, Premier XL4 and an Actiontec bridge) and the bolt seems to work fine with them.


----------



## mjcl

EDIT: Bridging works fine. I didn't notice when I first plugged in the ethernet cable the bolt turned off MoCA.


----------



## HarperVision

mjcl said:


> So it doesn't seem like bridging is working yet. When I plug in an ethernet device, it takes a long time (~ 10 seconds) for the link light to show on the bolt. After the link comes up, no traffic is received. I even tried watching with tcpdump, and nothing shows up.


Did you deactivate the Moca network being created by the actiontec first? Did you go into the tivo settings and select "use this device to create a moca network"?


----------



## krkaufman

mjcl said:


> EDIT: Bridging works fine. I didn't notice when I first plugged in the ethernet cable the bolt turned off MoCA.


That sounds like a nice bonus in the latest software, if the BOLT automatically disabled MoCA when the Ethernet cable was plugged-in -- because you wouldn't want the BOLT to automatically assume that it should bridge between Ethernet and MoCA.

That said, it's not clear that you actually tested "bridging." Bridging means that the BOLT can be used as the bridging device, between your Ethernet network and coax, to enable MoCA networking for your coax lines. But it sounds like you may have some other device acting as the bridge, either the XL4 or the Actiontec MoCA adapter.

Of your XL4 and Actiontec MoCA adapter, which of them is connected via Ethernet back to your LAN/router? How is your XL4 accessing your network and the Internet? Is your Mini currently using MoCA or Ethernet?


----------



## mjcl

krkaufman said:


> That said, it's not clear that you actually tested "bridging." Bridging means that the BOLT can be used as the bridging device, between your Ethernet network and coax, to enable MoCA networking for your coax lines. But it sounds like you may have some other device acting as the bridge, either the XL4 or the Actiontec MoCA adapter.
> 
> Of your XL4 and Actiontec MoCA adapter, which of them is connected via Ethernet back to your LAN/router? How is your XL4 accessing your network and the Internet? Is your Mini currently using MoCA or Ethernet?


The ActionTec is connected to the switch/router and both the Mini and XL4 (and now BOLT) connect to each other and the internet over MoCA. I hooked up my laptop to the ethernet port on the BOLT and the laptop was able to connect to the local LAN and the internet at large. A bit of an odd setup with 2 bridges, and probably not what TiVo intended, but works fine. I had done similar thing previously with a sonos P5 hooked up to the ethernet port on the XL4.


----------



## HarperVision

mjcl said:


> The ActionTec is connected to the switch/router and both the Mini and XL4 (and now BOLT) connect to each other and the internet over MoCA. I hooked up my laptop to the ethernet port on the BOLT and the laptop was able to connect to the local LAN and the internet at large. A bit of an odd setup with 2 bridges, and probably not what TiVo intended, but works fine. I had done similar thing previously with a sonos P5 hooked up to the ethernet port on the XL4.


Would it be too difficult to remove the Actiontec and try using the Bolt as the Moca bridge between your modem/router and the coax Moca devices?


----------



## mjcl

HarperVision said:


> Would it be too difficult to remove the Actiontec and try using the Bolt as the Moca bridge between your modem/router and the coax Moca devices?


Unfortunately the actiontec, router and other accoutrements are in the home office, where there is no TV. If nobody else reports success/failure using the BOLT 'normally' as a bridge, I can take the modem and router downstairs tomorrow night and give it a go.


----------



## embryjim

mjcl said:


> Unfortunately the actiontec, router and other accoutrements are in the home office, where there is no TV. If nobody else reports success/failure using the BOLT 'normally' as a bridge, I can take the modem and router downstairs tomorrow night and give it a go.


I think we're giving the term "bridge" different meanings. If the Tivo is a MoCA client via coax, it's Ethernet port can act as a pass-through switch and enable another device (or actual 5-10 port switch) to access the Internet/network, thereby somewhat "bridging" the connection.

If the Tivo is acting as the MoCA "bridge" it is creating the MoCA network and the Ethernet port must be plugged into a router/modem.

On a somewhat related note, I have the actiontec adapter as the bridge creating my MoCA network and another one on my basic Roamio. Interestingly, the Roamio connects via Ethernet and does not give me the option to connect using MoCA.

I completely understand not wanting to take a working system and move it around for testing purposes.


----------



## jcthorne

Bolt works fine a a bridge creating the coax network. I removed my actiontec adaptor I was using for the roamio and the bolt is now providing internet to the other tivo's on the coax network.


----------



## HarperVision

jcthorne said:


> Bolt works fine a a bridge creating the coax network. I removed my actiontec adaptor I was using for the roamio and the bolt is now providing internet to the other tivo's on the coax network.


Excellent, thanks! :up:


----------



## krkaufman

embryjim said:


> I think we're giving the term "bridge" different meanings. If the Tivo is a MoCA client via coax, it's Ethernet port can act as a pass-through switch and enable another device (or actual 5-10 port switch) to access the Internet/network, thereby somewhat "bridging" the connection.
> 
> If the Tivo is acting as the MoCA "bridge" it is creating the MoCA network and the Ethernet port must be plugged into a router/modem.


Actually, the TiVo is literally bridging Ethernet and MoCA in both cases, with the only difference being that your router is "findable" on one of the connected Ethernet segments (via layer 2, hardware/MAC address) and not on the other.

In your first case, above, the TiVo is bridging to an _isolated_ Ethernet segment, which can be a single Ethernet cable connected to a single device or, as you say, an Ethernet switch providing local wired Ethernet connectivity to multiple end devices. (The switch could even be a wireless router reconfigured as a wireless access point, both providing additional wired Ethernet ports and extending your home wireless network.)

When your devices need to hit the Internet, they route their traffic towards and through your default gateway, whose (layer 3) IP address on your home network/LAN is associated with a (layer 2) MAC/hardware address, and down at layer 2 on the MoCA'fied coax cables, your MoCA devices will see the router's hardware address listed as being accessible via a single MoCA bridge and will send the Internet-bound traffic through that bridge.



embryjim said:


> On a somewhat related note, I have the actiontec adapter as the bridge creating my MoCA network and another one on my basic Roamio. Interestingly, the Roamio connects via Ethernet and does not give me the option to connect using MoCA.


Right, because the basic Roamio, lacking any MoCA capability whatsoever, only sees the wired Ethernet connection being provided by the MoCA adapter. The base Roamio thinks it IS connected via Ethernet, and it needn't be the wiser. This is the same reason why some users have been able to employ wireless bridges to setup in-home streaming for Minis; the Minis believe they're connected via Ethernet because they *are* connected via Ethernet, even if the Ethernet run may only be 6-inches long and directly connected to a wireless bridge.


----------



## krkaufman

jcthorne said:


> Bolt works fine a a bridge creating the coax network. I removed my actiontec adaptor I was using for the roamio and the bolt is now providing internet to the other tivo's on the coax network.


Thanks very much for the confirmation! (I'd say it's much better that the documentation be a bit off than if the feature were missing or broken.)


----------



## krkaufman

embryjim said:


> On a somewhat related note, I have the actiontec adapter as the bridge creating my MoCA network and another one on my basic Roamio. Interestingly, the Roamio connects via Ethernet and does not give me the option to connect using MoCA.


Curious.

As I just posted, this is exactly what I would expect, since the base Roamio (nor Roamio OTA) has *ANY* MoCA capability. And that's what I'm seeing under my 'Change Network Settings' dialog. (That is, no 'Connect using MoCA' option; just Ethernet or Wireless.)

But what's curious is that the TiVo "how to connect your TiVo" support documentation is telling us to select 'Connect using MoCA' for both models. (Well, I guess it's not exactly 'curious', since it's likely a simple doco error by TiVo.)

edit: p.s. I ping'd TiVo re: the presumed documentation issue via Facebook.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> Curious. As I just posted, this is exactly what I would expect, since the base Roamio (nor Roamio OTA) has *ANY* MoCA capability. And that's what I'm seeing under my 'Change Network Settings' dialog. (That is, no 'Connect using MoCA' option; just Ethernet or Wireless.) But what's curious is that the TiVo "how to connect your TiVo" support documentation is telling us to select 'Connect using MoCA' for both models. (Well, I guess it's not exactly 'curious', since it's likely a simple doco error by TiVo.)


Yeah, that came up in the big moca thread previously and I went back and forth a few times saying the basic had simple moca receive/transmit capabilities similar to the mini, but kept being told otherwise and I pointed to the docs you linked and they said they were wrong. I didn't have a basic at the time so that's all I had to go by. Surprised they haven't fixed it yet.


----------



## embryjim

Thanks krkaufman and harpervision for the explanations. MoCA can be finicky enough depending on splitters, amps, cable length, etc., having the wrong documentation does not help (I'm looking at you Tivo support site).

I'm a desktop support tech so have a fundamental understanding of the network capabilities of these things. It seems there are three types of chipsets, the basic Roamio (isolated MoCA bridging), the Mini (which can be a MoCA client but cannot act as a bridge) and the Bolt, Plus, Pro (which can do both). If that is correct, would there be three actual different chipsets, or one chipset with abilities altered?


----------



## embryjim

Nope, after rereading krkaufman's posts the basic and OTA can only handle MoCA via an external adapter, which would make the Mini and the Bolt, Plus, Pro chipsets similar.


----------



## krkaufman

embryjim said:


> Thanks krkaufman and harpervision for the explanations. MoCA can be finicky enough depending on splitters, amps, cable length, etc., having the wrong documentation does not help (*I'm looking at you Tivo support site*).


Chuckle!



embryjim said:


> I'm a desktop support tech so have a fundamental understanding of the network capabilities of these things. It seems there are three types of chipsets, the basic Roamio (*isolated MoCA bridging*),


Nope. Only Ethernet or wireless -- and you'll have to use the Ethernet port to stream to Minis. Of course, that Ethernet port on the base/OTA Roamio can be connected to a MoCA adapter (officially supported) or to a wireless bridge (unsupportedd; call JoeKustra!), and the Roamio will think it's connected via Ethernet.

NOTE: This may be what you mean by "isolated MoCA bridging" but I thought the phrasing muddled the issue, making it seem like the Roamio had some level of MoCA capability built-in.



embryjim said:


> ... the Mini (which can be a MoCA client but cannot act as a bridge)


Correct! (I'm not sure what the "proper" term is, but 'client' gets the point across.)



embryjim said:


> ... and the Bolt, Plus, Pro (which can do both).


.... and you could include the 4-tuner Premiere models with this group, capable of natively connecting to an existing MoCA network, or creating a MoCA network.


----------



## aaronwt

I see FiOS sent me yet another unwanted router. This will be the sixth one thrown in the closet to gather dust.

But I see with this router they included a MoCA 2.0 rated splitter. 5-1675Mhz. So I guess the new FiOS router has MoCA 2.0. I guess I can at least use the splitter to connect both of my Bolts together to test out their MoCA 2.0 speeds sometime.


----------



## markjrenna

Why does Verizon send you routers you are not asking for? And 6 routers?



aaronwt said:


> I see FiOS sent me yet another unwanted router. This will be the sixth one thrown in the closet to gather dust.
> 
> But I see with this router they included a MoCA 2.0 rated splitter. 5-1675Mhz. So I guess the new FiOS router has MoCA 2.0. I guess I can at least use the splitter to connect both of my Bolts together to test out their MoCA 2.0 speeds sometime.


----------



## aaronwt

markjrenna said:


> Why does Verizon send you routers you are not asking for? And 6 routers?


This time I upgraded to the 150/150 tier. I told them I didn't want it but they sent it anyway. The last time I was supposed to be sent a cable card. Instead a router shows up. Actually I think that has happened twice.


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> I see FiOS sent me yet another unwanted router. This will be the sixth one thrown in the closet to gather dust.
> 
> But I see with this router they included a MoCA 2.0 rated splitter. 5-1675Mhz. So I guess the new FiOS router has MoCA 2.0. I guess I can at least use the splitter to connect both of my Bolts together to test out their MoCA 2.0 speeds sometime.


You of all people should know that a "MoCA 2.0 splitter" is utter bull****. There have been many splitters rated for 2000mhz for quite a while, whether for satellite or MoCA or for no good reason at all.

The newest Verizon Quantum routers have Wireless AC and MoCA 2.0.


----------



## fcfc2

Bigg said:


> You of all people should know that a "MoCA 2.0 splitter" is utter bull****. There have been many splitters rated for 2000mhz for quite a while, whether for satellite or MoCA or for no good reason at all.
> 
> The newest Verizon Quantum routers have Wireless AC and MoCA 2.0.


Hi,
Regarding the MoCA 2.0 rated splitter being "utter bull****". I am not sure exactly what your meaning is, but I will assume you mean that there is "no benefit" to MoCA 2.0 rated splitters or they are no different than lesser/other rated splitters. Is this your meaning?


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> You of all people should know that a "MoCA 2.0 splitter" is utter bull****. There have been many splitters rated for 2000mhz for quite a while, whether for satellite or MoCA or for no good reason at all.
> 
> The newest Verizon Quantum routers have Wireless AC and MoCA 2.0.


How is it Bull? It's only MoCA 2.0 rated because of the higher frequencies. Over the years the standard FiOS splitter was rated up to 1Ghz. Which works perfectly fine with MoCA 1.1. This was the first time I have seen FiOS supply a splitter rated for higher frequencies.
I've had 3Ghz splitters many years ago before I had FiOS. But this splitter was branded for Verizon, labeled MoCA 2.0 and had the higher frequency response. I'm not saying there was anything special about it.


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> How is it Bull? It's only MoCA 2.0 rated because of the higher frequencies. Over the years the standard FiOS splitter was rated up to 1Ghz. Which works perfectly fine with MoCA 1.1. This was the first time I have seen FiOS supply a splitter rated for higher frequencies.
> I've had 3Ghz splitters many years ago before I had FiOS. But this splitter was branded for Verizon, labeled MoCA 2.0 and had the higher frequency response. I'm not saying there was anything special about it.


1. A splitter doesn't care what's running through it. MoCA, QAM, ATSC-8VSB, NTSC, SWiM, some combination thereof.

2. Any decent splitter from the last few decades will run MoCA 2.0 just fine. Sure, you might run across some junk splitter that doesn't now and then, but most will work fine. They haven't been tested above 860mhz or 1ghz, but that doesn't really matter. They will pass significantly higher frequencies without a problem.

Ironically, MoCA 1.1 runs at around 1150mhz (for the LAN side), and it works fine on a "1ghz" splitter. It's not like it has a high-stop band filter in it to cut everything off above 1 ghz, that's what a MoCA filter does. The splitters just aren't tested above 1 ghz.

It's basically just Verizon BS on that splitter. I doubt its any different from the "860mhz" splitters of 10 or 20 years ago.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> 1. A splitter doesn't care what's running through it. MoCA, QAM, ATSC-8VSB, NTSC, SWiM, some combination thereof.
> 
> 2. Any decent splitter from the last few decades will run MoCA 2.0 just fine. Sure, you might run across some junk splitter that doesn't now and then, but most will work fine. They haven't been tested above 860mhz or 1ghz, but that doesn't really matter. They will pass significantly higher frequencies without a problem.
> 
> Ironically, MoCA 1.1 runs at around 1150mhz (for the LAN side), and it works fine on a "1ghz" splitter. It's not like it has a high-stop band filter in it to cut everything off above 1 ghz, that's what a MoCA filter does. The splitters just aren't tested above 1 ghz.
> 
> It's basically just Verizon BS on that splitter. I doubt its any different from the "860mhz" splitters of 10 or 20 years ago.


Uh oh....duck and cover!


----------



## fcfc2

Bigg said:


> 1. A splitter doesn't care what's running through it. MoCA, QAM, ATSC-8VSB, NTSC, SWiM, some combination thereof.
> 
> 2. Any decent splitter from the last few decades will run MoCA 2.0 just fine. Sure, you might run across some junk splitter that doesn't now and then, but most will work fine. They haven't been tested above 860mhz or 1ghz, but that doesn't really matter. They will pass significantly higher frequencies without a problem.
> 
> Ironically, MoCA 1.1 runs at around 1150mhz (for the LAN side), and it works fine on a "1ghz" splitter. It's not like it has a high-stop band filter in it to cut everything off above 1 ghz, that's what a MoCA filter does. The splitters just aren't tested above 1 ghz.
> 
> It's basically just Verizon BS on that splitter. I doubt its any different from the "860mhz" splitters of 10 or 20 years ago.


Are all your conclusions based on study or perhaps your own tests?


----------



## krkaufman

Bigg said:


> You of all people should know that a "MoCA 2.0 splitter" is utter bull****. There have been many splitters rated for 2000mhz for quite a while, whether for satellite or MoCA or for no good reason at all.


Not sure why helpful labeling of a splitter as "MoCA 2.0" is utter whatever, unless some company is labeling some splitter NOT rated & tested up through 1675 MHz as "MoCA 2.0" -- or is charging a premium price.

It's just a label to communicate that the splitter is actually designed and tested for the full frequency range spec'd for MoCA 2.0. Sure, satellite splitters would work, as well, but the label's not really for someone who would know that.

And as MoCA 2.0 devices become available, we may start to find that there's less room for error (or excess attenuation)... as the channel bandwidth doubles to 100MHz, and quadruples for bonded MoCA 2.0 -- and you strive for the maximum possible speed, rather than mere connectivity.


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> 1. A splitter doesn't care what's running through it. MoCA, QAM, ATSC-8VSB, NTSC, SWiM, some combination thereof.
> 
> 2. Any decent splitter from the last few decades will run MoCA 2.0 just fine. Sure, you might run across some junk splitter that doesn't now and then, but most will work fine. They haven't been tested above 860mhz or 1ghz, but that doesn't really matter. They will pass significantly higher frequencies without a problem.
> 
> Ironically, MoCA 1.1 runs at around 1150mhz (for the LAN side), and it works fine on a "1ghz" splitter. It's not like it has a high-stop band filter in it to cut everything off above 1 ghz, that's what a MoCA filter does. The splitters just aren't tested above 1 ghz.
> 
> It's basically just Verizon BS on that splitter. I doubt its any different from the "860mhz" splitters of 10 or 20 years ago.


????? MoCA 2.0 runs up to 1650Mhz for the center frequencies. These splitters are rated for MoCA 2.0 strictly because of the higher frequency response. Not sure why you think every 1Ghz splitter will work at 1.65Ghz? They may or may not. But one that is tested to those frequencies and above is guaranteed to work.

I've definitely run across splitters at work that would not work at those higher frequencies. When they were tested they wouldn't even pass frequencies at 800Mhz.


----------



## krkaufman

aaronwt said:


> ????? MoCA 2.0 runs up to *1650Mhz for the center frequencies*. These splitters are rated for MoCA 2.0 strictly because of the higher frequency response. Not sure why you think every 1Ghz splitter will work at 1.65Ghz? They may or may not. But one that is tested to those frequencies and above is guaranteed to work.
> 
> I've definitely run across splitters at work that would not work at those higher frequencies. When they were tested they wouldn't even pass frequencies at 800Mhz.


Heh, given that MoCA 2.0 channels are 100 MHz wide, all these 5-1675MHz splitters could only "accurately" be labeled as MoCA 1.1 splitters. To pick a nit.

edit: This would seem to have been an inaccurate statement, per specs, though due to 1625 MHz being the center frequency of the top MoCA 2.0 channel, not 1650 MHz. (1625 + 100/2 = 1675!)


----------



## aaronwt

krkaufman said:


> Heh, given that MoCA 2.0 channels are 100 MHz wide, all these 5-1675MHz splitters could only "accurately" be labeled as MoCA 1.1 splitters. To pick a nit.


It is a Verizon branded splitter. S who knws what they do.

The splitter was the only good thing to come out of all this. From FiOS yesterday I got a MoCA 2.0 router I didn't want, and two cable cards I didn't want. None of the stuff was even supposed to have been shipped to me.

Although I guess in the future I could use the router and turn off dhcp and just use it to create a MoCA 2.0 segment on my network to replace the current 1.1 segment.. If the next Mini is MoCA 2.0 capable I just might do that if I can still get the same 320+mbps transfers rate on the Bolt that I get with its GigE connection.


----------



## Bigg

fcfc2 said:


> Are all your conclusions based on study or perhaps your own tests?


1. Facts.

2. I used to have a MoCA setup with lots of RG-6, a bunch of old splitters I found in the basement of this rental house that said 860mhz, no POE filter, and a bit of RG-59. It worked fine.



krkaufman said:


> Not sure why helpful labeling of a splitter as "MoCA 2.0" is utter whatever


It's nonsense because a splitter can't be a "MOCA" splitter, and any halfway decent splitter from the last 20 years will work fine with MoCA 2.0.



> And as MoCA 2.0 devices become available, we may start to find that there's less room for error (or excess attenuation)... as the channel bandwidth doubles to 100MHz, and quadruples for bonded MoCA 2.0 -- and you strive for the maximum possible speed, rather than mere connectivity.


If you're trying to run your entire network over it, you would. If it's just for DVRs, MoCA 1.1 speeds are always well in excess of what you need. Ideally, the rest of the network is Ethernet, although MoCA 2.0 will be very useful to build backbones in situations where you aren't allowed to drill/fish CAT cable.



aaronwt said:


> These splitters are rated for MoCA 2.0 strictly because of the higher frequency response.


First of all, the concept of a "MoCA" splitter is nonsense. It's rated for some set of frequencies. Period. Secondly, any decent 860mhz splitter works fine with MoCA.



> I've definitely run across splitters at work that would not work at those higher frequencies. When they were tested they wouldn't even pass frequencies at 800Mhz.


Yes, occasionally, you will run across some POS from 30 years ago, but most are just fine with MoCA. MoCA is very resilient, it will blast through most splitters.



aaronwt said:


> If the next Mini is MoCA 2.0 capable I just might do that if I can still get the same 320+mbps transfers rate on the Bolt that I get with its GigE connection.


You can mix and match MoCA 1.1 and 2.0. If two 2.0 devices talk to each other on a mixed network, it will be at the higher rate. There is no reason the Mini would need MoCA 2.0. It will get it by default when the chipset supports it anyway.


----------



## HarperVision

You are correct in all you're saying Bigg, but one thing you're not considering, and I didn't either when I made the same argument a couple months ago, is "isolation".

Basic splitters, even up to 2 or 3 Gig, just split the signal basically evenly with "x" amount of loss. Some of the newer ones that are branding themselves as "MoCa", etc. may split and/or isolate the frequency bands on each leg of it, like a diplexer does, keeping the lower 5 - 860 or 940MHz freqs on one leg "isolated" and then the higher moca freqs that are above 1 gig on the other leg.

I doubted it too, but then just experienced similar issues setting up my modulator. I use it to broadcast on ATSC channel 9, which is an open channel on my TWC signals. When I use a plain, normal splitter that's 5-2.3GHz rated I get the ATSC channel on CH9, but since the inputs aren't isolated the harmonics or something were blowing out some of my higher up cable channels, even though they weren't on the same freqs at all. So I purchased a VHF/UHF Diplexer splittler/combiner and put the ATSC CH9 signal on the VHF side and the cable channels on the UHF side and since there's great filtering and isolation between the legs, everything now works 100%.

I'm not saying the moca probably won't work with the plain splitters rated high enough, but with ones made specifically for their intended purposes like diplexing or moca, it probably works better and more efficiently.


----------



## krkaufman

Bigg said:


> It's nonsense because a splitter can't be a "MOCA" splitter, and *any halfway decent splitter* from the last 20 years will work fine with MoCA 2.0.
> 
> ...
> 
> First of all, the concept of a "MoCA" splitter is nonsense. It's rated for some set of frequencies. Period. Secondly, *any decent 860mhz splitter* works fine with MoCA.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yes, occasionally, you will run across some POS from 30 years ago, but *most are just fine *with MoCA.


That you continually have to qualify "any" with "decent" totally justifies labeling a splitter as a "MoCA splitter" -- meaning it will DEFINITELY work with MoCA, regardless of channel, and without any issue (aside from the inevitable manufacturing mistake).

And, again, being able to connect via MoCA isn't the same as attaining the maximum possible MoCA speed for your coax plant. I look forward to the test reports showing that every 860 MHz splitter delivers the same MoCA 2.0 performance across all MoCA channels that a MoCA-rated splitter does.


----------



## krkaufman

HarperVision said:


> You are correct in all you're saying Bigg, ...


No he's not.


----------



## fcfc2

Hi Bigg,
Your use of "facts" actually seems much closer to a theory or hypothesis, as the definition states; "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." Your working "hypothesis" is that all splitters are identical from those rated from 860MHz to 3GHz and that the only "real" difference is that "some" are junk/bad because they don't work in MoCA applications. And you "objectively tested" your theory by using a conglomeration of old splitters with a couple different grades of coax, RG6 and RG59. Based on this experience and no other testing, there is absolutely no difference in splitters at all.
I would agree that it is a "fact" that most splitters do seem to "work" with MoCA networks, as the MoCA Alliance determined in their first field trials. If memory serves they found a MoCA network could be successfully established in upwards of 90% of the trial homes. Their standard was if it "works" it is a successful. Interestingly, however, in those homes where a MoCA network could not be established, the most highly recommended remedial treatment was to replace the existing splitters. I guess they found quite a few "bad" ones although apparently even these "bad" ones were satisfactorily passing TV signals.
I also was curious a few years back when MoCA rated splitters started to become readily available and after reading several anecdotal and conflicting arguments regarding the effectiveness of various splitters, I decided to gather up several pairs of splitters from various name brand manufacturers and a couple no name ones too. I then repeatedly swapped them out while testing not if they &#8220;worked&#8221; or not but the actual throughput from the various rated splitters. What I found was that they all worked but the Fios brand MoCA 2.0 rated splitters gave the fastest throughput by approximately 5 to 6%. I concluded that based on these tests, that indeed that there was something about those MoCA rated splitters that was having a measurable effect. This finding is a bit closer to the definition of a &#8220;fact&#8221; than yours. It further seems to clearly be evidence that there is something more than just a label between various splitters.
Here is my practical conclusion and recommendation. Try to use your existing cabling and splitters when setting up a MoCA network and if satisfied, great. However, if you have problems and are considering replacing your splitters to get things working, consider using MoCA rated ones as these seem to provide a small but quite discernible improvement in performance. I further hypothesize that as MoCA 2.0 devices slowly become the standard, these small benefits may become more apparent especially with the Bonded versions of the adapters.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> No he's not.


No, he's right in that they will usually "work", but maybe not in an optimal fashion as pointed out by me, fcfc2 and by his own personal use of them.

A lot of it IS marketing speak with some science and benefit to it.


----------



## krkaufman

HarperVision said:


> No, he's right in that they will usually "work", but maybe not in an optimal fashion as pointed out by me, fcfc2 and by his own personal use of them.


But that wasn't his point; that's just his argument trying to make his case. His point was that it is nonsensical to create or market a "MoCA splitter."

There *IS* a benefit to a splitter being rated and tested for the WHOLE MoCA frequency range, and it makes sense for such a splitter to be referred to as a "MoCA splitter."



HarperVision said:


> You are correct in *all* you're saying Bigg, ...


Again, no, he's not.


----------



## krkaufman

fcfc2 said:


> I further hypothesize that as MoCA 2.0 devices slowly become the standard, these small benefits may become more apparent especially with the Bonded versions of the adapters.


Concur.



krkaufman said:


> And as MoCA 2.0 devices become available, we may start to find that there's less room for error (or excess attenuation)... as the channel bandwidth doubles to 100MHz, and quadruples for bonded MoCA 2.0 -- and you strive for the maximum possible speed, rather than mere connectivity.


----------



## HarperVision

krkaufman said:


> But that wasn't his point; that's just his argument trying to make his case. His point was that it is nonsensical to create or market a "MoCA splitter."
> 
> There *IS* a benefit to a splitter being rated and tested for the WHOLE MoCA frequency range, and it makes sense for such a splitter to be referred to as a "MoCA splitter."
> 
> Again, no, he's not.


I agree, not ALL. I already said its a benefit.


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> I'm not saying the moca probably won't work with the plain splitters rated high enough, but with ones made specifically for their intended purposes like diplexing or moca, it probably works better and more efficiently.


Splitters don't filter like a diplexer. At least they shouldn't. They should be able to pass any frequency any direction.



krkaufman said:


> That you continually have to qualify "any" with "decent" totally justifies labeling a splitter as a "MoCA splitter"


You could argue for labeling splitters that work up to 2ghz, but guess what? DirecTV had those several years ago for SWiM. Labelling a splitter specifically for MoCA is utter nonsense.



fcfc2 said:


> Based on this experience and no other testing, there is absolutely no difference in splitters at all.


I didn't say there was absolutely no difference. First of all, there are some junk splitters that can't cleanly pass 2-2000mhz frequencies. Most of them are fine, they've only been tested to 860mhz, but they would work fine up to 2000mhz or probably quite a bit higher if you had an application for that. Beyond that, various splitters will have slightly different attenuation, but that's negligible compared to everything else going on in a MoCA system, and MoCA can adjust gain anyways to get the optimal levels.



> Interestingly, however, in those homes where a MoCA network could not be established, the most highly recommended remedial treatment was to replace the existing splitters. I guess they found quite a few "bad" ones although apparently even these "bad" ones were satisfactorily passing TV signals.


I'd be interested to know how long ago that was. With digital and cloud-based DVRs, most of those have had to be replaced. Analog and even lower frequency digital signals could handle a lot of crap, stuff like X1 and MoCA can't, but that's not exclusive to MoCA's frequency. Even a single X1 without MoCA is pretty picky about it's signal strengths to get DOCSIS to work.



> However, if you have problems and are considering replacing your splitters to get things working, consider using MoCA rated ones as these seem to provide a small but quite discernible improvement in performance. I further hypothesize that as MoCA 2.0 devices slowly become the standard, these small benefits may become more apparent especially with the Bonded versions of the adapters.


No. It doesn't matter if they say "MoCA" on them. If you're paranoid about your splitters, then get ones for the correct frequency ranges, irregardless of what technology's name they have pasted on them.

Probably 1% of users will even care about the throughput. Most users are just using it for DVRs, for which MoCA 1.1 is fine. The only people who care are those who can't pull CAT cable and are using MoCA as a backbone for the rest of their network. Heck, probably 98% of MoCA users don't even know what MoCA is. They just think X1 or Genie (which uses DECA at lower frequencies, but it's still basically MoCA) or whatever is magic, and that's that.



krkaufman said:


> There *IS* a benefit to a splitter being rated and tested for the WHOLE MoCA frequency range, and it makes sense for such a splitter to be referred to as a "MoCA splitter."


That's an argument for splitters that are tested for a frequency range, not slapping an idiotic label on them. I'm 99% sure there's no difference between those "MoCA 2.0" splitters and the ones they were using 20 years ago that were rated for 860mhz, they just swept them higher, but if it makes you sleep better at night. 

There have been splitters rated for 2000, 2300, 2400, or 3000mhz on Amazon for several years now.



krkaufman said:


> Concur.


No. No one is going to notice the difference. The few enthusiasts who do test it will find that any decent splitter from the past 20 years will work just fine with MoCA 2.0.


----------



## snerd

Bigg said:


> First of all, the concept of a "MoCA" splitter is nonsense. It's rated for some set of frequencies. Period. Secondly, any decent 860mhz splitter works fine with MoCA.


I generally agree with your position that putting "MoCA" on the splitter is mostly marketing nonsense. However, there are *some* splitters out there that actually have a MoCA PoE filter built into the input port of the splitter. In that specific case, putting "MoCA" on the splitter seems justified.


----------



## snerd

krkaufman said:


> There *IS* a benefit to a splitter being rated and tested for the WHOLE MoCA frequency range, and it makes sense for such a splitter to be referred to as a "MoCA splitter."


I certainly agree that there is a benefit to a splitter being tested so that it can be accurately labelled with the actual frequency range of the splitter so that the customer can determine whether it is appropriate for their application. What would really be awesome would be if the manufacturers would provide frequency plots showing typical RF performance of their splitters. Sadly, that isn't likely to happen, ever.

Beyond that, if the splitter doesn't actually perform some kind of MoCA function (say a built-in PoE filter) then adding "MoCA" to the label is largely marketing hype that is probably placed there to justify excessive pricing.

I can easily imagine that Verizon wants to charge all of their customers to upgrade to their fancy new improved MoCA fortified splitters, now that they support MoCA 2.0.


----------



## snerd

Bigg said:


> I'm 99% sure there's no difference between those "MoCA 2.0" splitters and the ones they were using 20 years ago that were rated for 860mhz, they just swept them higher, but if it makes you sleep better at night.


I'm an RF engineer, and I'm 95% sure that your position is too extreme. Getting things to work at ever increasing frequencies is difficult. As frequencies increase, everything gets harder. The fact that splitters with 2400MHz ratings are readily available today isn't merely a result of new labels on 20 year old technology. Getting 860MHz splitters took engineering effort. When cable TV expanded up to 1000MHz, extra effort was required to improve splitters. Further improvements to get 2400MHz bandwidth required better materials, better construction, and serious engineering effort.

The fact that MoCA 1.1 works fine with a lot of old splitters means that MoCA is doing what it was designed to do, which is adapt even when crappy splitters are in play. The credit for that belongs squarely on MoCA, and is absolutely not merely due to splitters magically having capabilities that weren't needed at the time the splitters were designed.


----------



## krkaufman

snerd said:


> Beyond that, if the splitter doesn't actually perform some kind of MoCA function (say a built-in PoE filter) then adding "MoCA" to the label is largely marketing hype that is probably placed there to justify excessive pricing.
> 
> I can easily imagine that Verizon wants to charge all of their customers to upgrade to their fancy new improved MoCA fortified splitters, now that they support MoCA 2.0.


I can agree that it is marketing; but also view it as helpful for the average customer who would be baffled by the frequency specs.

Now if they're charging a bunch more for "MoCA" splitters, then, yeah, that'd be aggravating -- though not much different than the chump pricing for cables at brick-and-mortar stores.


----------



## snerd

HarperVision said:


> Basic splitters, even up to 2 or 3 Gig, just split the signal basically evenly with "x" amount of loss. Some of the newer ones that are branding themselves as "MoCa", etc. may split and/or isolate the frequency bands on each leg of it, like a diplexer does, keeping the lower 5 - 860 or 940MHz freqs on one leg "isolated" and then the higher moca freqs that are above 1 gig on the other leg.


Um, no. Splitters should never act like diplexers, and vice-versa.

If you are broadcasting your own signals, you need to keep your broadcasts away from cable modems, MoCA adapters, and TiVos. No splitter, whether tagged "MoCA" or not, would have worked in an application like yours where a diplexer is needed.


----------



## HarperVision

snerd said:


> Um, no. Splitters should never act like diplexers, and vice-versa. If you are broadcasting your own signals, you need to keep your broadcasts away from cable modems, MoCA adapters, and TiVos. No splitter, whether tagged "MoCA" or not, would have worked in an application like yours where a diplexer is needed.


Yeah I wasn't sure if that's what they were doing with the moca ones. That's why I said "may". Thanks for clarifying.

I did isolate my modulator broadcast from all those things, so I'm good there.


----------



## Bigg

snerd said:


> I generally agree with your position that putting "MoCA" on the splitter is mostly marketing nonsense. However, there are *some* splitters out there that actually have a MoCA PoE filter built into the input port of the splitter. In that specific case, putting "MoCA" on the splitter seems justified.


Yeah, I could agree with that. Although the whole idea of baking a filter into a splitter seems like a terrible idea when they can just be screwed together.



snerd said:


> I'm an RF engineer, and I'm 95% sure that your position is too extreme. Getting things to work at ever increasing frequencies is difficult. As frequencies increase, everything gets harder. The fact that splitters with 2400MHz ratings are readily available today isn't merely a result of new labels on 20 year old technology. Getting 860MHz splitters took engineering effort. When cable TV expanded up to 1000MHz, extra effort was required to improve splitters. Further improvements to get 2400MHz bandwidth required better materials, better construction, and serious engineering effort.
> 
> The fact that MoCA 1.1 works fine with a lot of old splitters means that MoCA is doing what it was designed to do, which is adapt even when crappy splitters are in play. The credit for that belongs squarely on MoCA, and is absolutely not merely due to splitters magically having capabilities that weren't needed at the time the splitters were designed.


You are describing exactly what I was describing. Crappy splitters. Decent splitters that were made with quality materials 20 years ago should handle 1500mhz or higher just fine. And if you have a junk splitter in your system, you're probably going to run into issues at the upper end of an 860mhz system anyway unless you have a particularly strong signal.

It's the same as coax cable. All good quality coax cable manufactured as RG-6 will work just fine up to 3ghz or higher. The problem there is that it's not easy to swap out, and some 1000mhz cable may be cheap, poorly manufactured cable that won't work very well at 1500mhz or 2ghz or higher. So in that case, it makes sense to go with cable that's actually swept to 3000mhz, so that you're not guessing on whether you got junk or not.


----------



## snerd

Bigg said:


> You are describing exactly what I was describing.


I really should let this die without further comment, since I know you're not going to let this go.

What I described was NOTHING LIKE your claim that "there's no difference between those "MoCA 2.0" splitters and the ones they were using 20 years ago that were rated for 860mhz"

My claim is that splitters have evolved over time, and that splitters rated for 2300MHz are not the same as old 860MHz splitters. They are quite different (both the splitters, and our two claims


----------



## Bigg

snerd said:


> My claim is that splitters have evolved over time,


Well, if you spin it that way, it is something totally different.



> and that splitters rated for 2300MHz are not the same as old 860MHz splitters. They are quite different (both the splitters, and our two claims


I don't believe one bit that they are making today's "2000mhz" or "2300mhz" etc splitters in a different way than they were making good quality splitters 20 years ago. They are just testing them to higher frequencies. And they can't get away with selling cheap junk anymore that fails a sweep to 2000mhz or less. And those junk splitters probably don't work well with modern high-frequency (860 or 1000mhz) digital cable systems, unless you happen to have a really hot line that can overcome the higher-frequency loss on that crap. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that ~650-1000mhz cable signals will fail before MoCA will, as MoCA has so much more gain to play with to blast through the junk.


----------



## krkaufman

Does the BOLT even have MoCA?


----------



## aaronwt

krkaufman said:


> Does the BOLT even have MoCA?


It has MoCA 2.0


----------



## krkaufman

From the thread discussing the new Actiontec MoCA 2.0 adapters...


fcfc2 said:


> The MoCA 2.0 spec rates the speed for the "Enhanced" Mode as being 800+Mbps, so the 6200 version is apparently running in the "Enhanced" Mode. That seems like it's going to be the top speed for these devices. with the "Bonded" channels. With the standard MoCA 2.0 topping out about 400+Mbps, *which is what I got with 2 Fios Gateway G1100 routers*.


I'm wondering what the max network speed is for the BOLT's MoCA 2.0 bridge. Is it limited to the base MoCA 2.0 400 Mbps or is it capable of the 800 Mbps "enhanced" speed? The following excerpt from the press release makes me think the BOLT's MoCA 2.0 maxes-out at 400 Mpbs:

*See the TiVo Bridge in action.*

TiVos multi-room networking adapter, TiVo Bridge, allows users to network all TiVo devices with existing coax cable, while still experiencing high-quality multi-room video *at 400mbit/sec*. (link)​
Depending on one's specific needs, it may not make sense to buy the enhanced/bonded MoCA 2.0 adapters, if the BOLT's max is 400 Mbps.

edit: p.s. Turns out the above info actually relates to a new TiVo-branded MoCA 2.0 adapter announced at CEDIA, named the "TiVo Bridge." More here.


----------



## niterider006

I'm having trouble getting my Moca to work; the dreaded C33 error where my Mini is not picking up the Moca at all. After speaking with Tivo CS, they had informed me that my Antronix 1002 mhz splitter installed 4 years ago by comcast for a new house is not good enough and that i need somewhere between 1350 -1650. How can that be?


----------



## fcfc2

niterider006 said:


> I'm having trouble getting my Moca to work; the dreaded C33 error where my Mini is not picking up the Moca at all. After speaking with Tivo CS, they had informed me that my Antronix 1002 mhz splitter installed 4 years ago by comcast for a new house is not good enough and that i need somewhere between 1350 -1650. How can that be?


Hi,
I just recently found a post indicating that the mini's MoCA channel was changing on it's own and this was preventing it from connecting to the host DVR. Might want to check that setting on both the mini and the DVR.


----------



## niterider006

fcfc2 said:


> Hi,
> I just recently found a post indicating that the mini's MoCA channel was changing on it's own and this was preventing it from connecting to the host DVR. Might want to check that setting on both the mini and the DVR.


Thanks but I don't believe that to be the issue as I've tried using a dedicated channel. I also hooked the Mini straight to the Bolt and it worked fine and was able to download the install. When I use the mini in a different room I ge nothing. Can you post the link to what you are referring to? I've been trying to get Moca to work for a week now and I'm at my wits end.


----------



## snerd

niterider006 said:


> Thanks but I don't believe that to be the issue as I've tried using a dedicated channel. I also hooked the Mini straight to the Bolt and it worked fine and was able to download the install. When I use the mini in a different room I ge nothing. Can you post the link to what you are referring to? I've been trying to get Moca to work for a week now and I'm at my wits end.


Two possibilities spring to mind: crappy splitters or coax that is completely disconnected. MoCA can *sometimes* work with splitters that are rated only to 1000MHz, but I'd recommend replacing old splitters with ones rated at/above 1675MHz for best MoCA results.

Other possibilities include misplaced MoCA PoE filter(s) or possibly diplexers placed where splitters are needed.

If you can map out all of your coax and draw a diagram, that would be very helpful.


----------



## snerd

niterider006 said:


> I'm having trouble getting my Moca to work; the dreaded C33 error where my Mini is not picking up the Moca at all. After speaking with Tivo CS, they had informed me that my Antronix 1002 mhz splitter installed 4 years ago by comcast for a new house is not good enough and that i need somewhere between 1350 -1650. How can that be?


The splitter might be the problem. MoCA usually operates at frequencies in 1125-1625 MHz band. If your system includes an amplifier, then that could block MoCA signals as well. It would be very helpful if you could "map out" all the coax and draw a diagram showing all splitters, amplifiers, PoE filters, etc.


----------



## krkaufman

What snerd said.

I'd also suggest posting that diagram -- even a hand-drawn diagram would be hooge -- over to the main MoCA thread, here, or start a new thread, to get as many eyes on it as possible.

p.s. As an alternative, *if* you find it more convenient, you could map your coax network using a text file, similar to the attached.


----------

