Can't used advanced TV features without the Actiontec ... the heck?

[rjc3]

Oh come ON. What a {please keep your posts courteous}mplimentation of a service. I try to switch to Ethernet (Your router choice is ... less then adequate at best.) You gice us a direct line to an IP television service, and then you restrict what router we can use.

YAY!

So... Why in the sam hill do we have to use a wireless router to connect to a COAX NETWORK, when wireless would have worked just FINE. I would even settle for a hard LAN connection at this point.

The way I see it, I have a few choices.

Go without advanced features.

Stay with a crummy router.

Use a convoluted solution using my router with the actiontec.

Wait for a firmware that allows me to bypass itself on my IP4 network,

1 and 2 are out .. and 3 is looking very enticing right now. And I would imagine 4 wont come anytime soon (Same with wireless N.)

[lasagna]

Perhaps if you describe what you are trying to do, somewhere here will help you understand how to accomplish it.    You may find that you simply don't understand how the service operates -- there are quite a few networking things going on behind the scenes.

The ActionTec router is actually a pretty good router -- it's user interface is quite confusing, I'll admit that -- but the reality is if you know how to work with it, you can pretty much do anything you need.  Sure, the wireless is a bit underpowered, but that's easily addressed with a WAP or auxiliary router running in transparent mode.  And some of the early functional complaints have long since been addressed with firmware.

If you understood what's going on behind the scenes, you would know what role the ActionTec plays in bridging the wireless, ethernet, and coax via MoCA networks (needed to allow the STB's to access the one another as well as the internet for VOD, guide data, as well as streaming content).

So, tell us again what problem you want to solve (and not "I wanna use my router instead of theirs" because that doesn't help understand why you think you need to do that).

[Hubrisnxs]

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/verizonfios/3.0_Networking

[Hubrisnxs]

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/verizonfios/3.0_Networking

Use this link, and all of your wildest dreams will come true.....

use of your own router, with fz fios and still retaining advanced features and VOD

[rjc3]

yeah .. pain in the **bleep** tho. probably going to have to do that. just annoying.

[Keyboards]

Not that eases your pain any, but the reason they use the Actiontec or Westell (and MoCA for IP) is because it makes their (Verizon's) installations easier as the average household has coax throughout but not CAT-5 or CAT-6 wiring to every TV outlet.

Can't really blame them with the number of installations they do.

[spacedebris]

In the beginning, Verizon used a Dlink router + Motorola NIM for thier installs. The Dlink with ethernet for the internet and the NIM to convert internet to moca for the TV service. Then to save money and to reduce the number of devices they had to install. They switched to Actiontec which combined the NIM and router into one. This also had the added benefit of only having to run one cable to the router instead of two. This made for an easier install for both Verizon and the customer.

Now if you want to use your own router. Thats easy. I do it myself. You just have to go back to the way Verizon did it in the past. Run ethernet to your router, buy a NIM (you can still find these on ebay and craigslist occasionally), and you have your service working. The only thing I cant seem to get working with this setup is the remote DVR access (program from website) and the caller ID on TV.  Seems those two features need software or firmware from the actiontec router. But everything else (VOD, guide, widgets, etc) all work fine.

[GaryDoug]

"Why in the sam hill do we have to use a wireless router to connect to a COAX NETWORK, when wireless would have worked just FINE. I would even settle for a hard LAN connection at this point"

We all would probably. I think the reason we are constrained to use their router(s) is because they are somewhat propriatary. If not, anyone could just serve the entire neighborhood with free wired TV service and internet. Requiring communications to be somewhat limited to wireless restricts the range of use to 100 feet or less (mostly less). Most other cable companies deliver the program guide and VOD services via coax only, but limit the drive capability in other ways. My third DVR is located about 60 feet from the router and cannot use any services, including the program guide. Once a week, I move the router into that room for a few minutes to download a week's worth of the guide. VOD is out of the question of course. I would love a solution that would fix that, other than ordering an extra installation.

[lasagna]

Actually there is nothing "propriatary" about the setup at all.   I see a lot of kvetching here but no one posting anything specific that they would like to do functionally (beyond I wanna do it this way, but they won't let me).   Outline a specific need or capability and perhaps someone here will tell you how to solve you particular issue...  Moving a router to connect to a DVR?  Why in the world would you do that?  Not having a hard wired connection to your router?  Why then do I see 4 ports on the ActionTec?   Feeding the entire neighborhood with TV?  Technology-wise, nothing you could with or without the router would allow you to do that.  I understand that some folks might be frustrated by not being able to get something to work -- but trust me, I have a pretty complicated home network and have not yet found something I can't make it do.

Please outline what you are trying to do and let those here who understand the technology help you.

The ActionTec router is a multi-functioned device that has five distinct networks inside of it (MoCA Coax-WAN on 1000mhz, MoCA Coax-Lan on 1150mhz, 4-port 10/100mb Ethernet, 1-port WAN ethernet, and 802.11b/g wireless).  Definitions inside of this router map how these various interfaces behalf (and are, in fact, fully configurable by the user).    The default configuration which Verizon sets for the router bridges the MoCA-Lan, Ethernet, and Wireless segments to form a "local network", and defines the Moca-Wan and Wan Ethernet to be two distinct interfaces on the other side of the NAT/PAT router/firewall from the local network.

You can, in fact, use any of these components or not, and extend or replace any of these networks with your own gear.  What you can't do is break the basic fact that that there needs to be a bridged local network for your MoCA LAN, Ethernet, and Wireless -- but with that said, there are numerous ways to make that happen.

The STB's use the MoCA Lan to reach the internet for VOD and Guide information and for talking to one another for streaming DVR content if you are using the Home DVR.    This saves having to have to interfaces into the STB's as the TV and Local network can ride the same cable.   TV is not delivered thru the router at all -- it is a seperate relationship between the ONT and each STB again over different frequencies on the Coax. 

The only two things which are specific to the ActionTec are the use of some special DHCP settings to insure that the STB's get a QOS bit set on their packets (prioritized over regular internet traffic your are generating) so that your real time video activity always gets precidence over any other kind of traffic and the interaction between the central FiOS systems, your STB's (across the internet), and the router to enable functions like the remote DVR application, Mobile Remote, etc.  In this latter case, you really don't need the ActionTec specifically, but since they need to add special forwarding rules in some cases (where UPnP isn't sufficient), they look for the ActionTec so they can remotely/programatically configure it.   The QOS stuff is a nice to have and not absolutely required provided you don't mind the blips that occur when you starve the bandwidth from an STB.  For the port forwarding stuff, if you know what's required, you can circumvent the need for the ActionTec to be in the picture beyond the initial setup. 

So, I say again, would someone like to describe they're specific networking challenge in terms of why they can't do it with the ActionTec?  There are lots of people here who are willing to help if you'll let them.

[GaryDoug]

OK, lasagna, I'll byte....

"Moving a router to connect to a DVR?  Why in the world would you do that? "

Well Einstein, at 60feet plus (as the crow flies) from the router... and with the home's steel roof..... and bronze screening around the pool enclosure in-between the router and the DVR, the signal just can't get through without moving the router closer. That's why! I like to have the program guide. Maybe you don't.

And moving the router to a more central location has been tried without success. This house is expansive with two wings. The only place it might work for both entertainment room and master bedroom is in the middle of the pool! But then it won't work for the living room, so.... once a week I cart it around. And the logical "central" location (front foyer) is 75 feet from either room and then works for neither.

Bottom line: This router does not have the range for DVR/STB communication that Verizon claims (150'); at least not under these conditions. Oh and by the way, I have wireless PC internet connection in every location of the house and yard, why not the program guide???. Can you otherwise explain why my cheap laptop PC can outperform the DVR at 4 times the distance?

"Feeding the entire neighborhood with TV?  Technology-wise, nothing you could (do?) with or without the router would allow you to do that."

Technology-wise it is very possible, if it were not for the requirement of using the router for the program guide, without which most people "could not live". I'm not saying I want to do that, just that it must be a reason for the router use by Verizon. Other cable companies have guides and VOD and such and do not use routers for that purpose.

Finally and specifically, can you help extend the range of the wireless communications to the DVR/STB's? Without going into ponderous details. Verizon says nothing can be done except for a separate install. Thanks.

p.s.

proprietary: "used, produced, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right"

Since I can't find this for sale anywhere (except used on Ebay), and Actiontech apparently does not sell it even on their web store, I think it applies.

[lasagna]

OK ... let's work one problem at a time ....

The DVR ... this is a verizon DVR?  Connected to the FiOS network via Coax?  Or something different?

If we're talking Verizon, the STB's do not use wireless -- have nothing to do with it -- turn it off on the router if you like to prove the point.  If you're talking a different model, please describe the setup.

For the STB to work properly, two things must be possible:

1. The STB must be able to communicate and receive signals from the ONT.  This brings the TV channels into the box itself.

2. The STB must be able to communicate (over the same Coax) with the Router.  This allows it to use MoCA (standard for running a LAN over a broadband coax).   This is no different really than what a PC on an ethernet cable or a wireless connection is doing to communicate to the Internet.

The ActionTEC, among other things is a MoCA bridge in that it bridges the network traffic from the Coax to the Ethernet so that there is a path out of network to the Internet.

If you go into the STB under Menu -> Settings -> System Information, what does it say for IP address?   It should have an address on the 192.168.1.x network (in the 100-110 address range).

On the STB front panel, with the power ON, press:  Power, Select, Select (individually about 1/2 second apart).  You will a diagnostic menu appear on the TV.  What are the SNR readings on d03 and d04?

Describe for me the cabling scenario including distances and ALL splitters from the DVR to the ONT and from the Router to the ONT(or draw a diagram and post it).   While you're checking for splitters (keep an eye out for ones you might have forgotten about), check each of them to see that they are certified from 5mhz-1000mhz operation.  Check each cable an report on the type of cable being used (we're looking for all RG-6 cable and no RG-59 as over distances RG-59 won't carry a digital signal).  Lastly, do you have any signal amplifiers anywhere in the system?

[GaryDoug]

Thanks lasagna,

The picture is becoming much more clear now. Your information is invaluable.

I was an idiot for listening to the Verizon installation tech who told me that the guide and VOD were wireless communications and therefore required the wireless router. Being an engineer, I naturally questioned that explanation since it would involve parallel and redundant signal paths. He insisted that it was the case and that the guide was indeed sent wirelessly from the router to the DVR/STB. I wondered why something already connected via coax would need an extra path, but believed him. Why would he lie?

Equipment inventory: all Verizon-supplied unless noted otherwise

  ONT (with ethernet port physically blocked with a clear RTV sealant)

  Westell  A90-9100EM15-10 router coax cabled 10' from ONT

  All 3 DVR's are Verizon (all QIP6416)

  3 foot RG6 coax jumper from ONT to 4-way splitter

  6 foot RG6 coax jumper from splitter to DRV#1

  30 foot RG6 coax from splitter to DVR#2

 120 foot RG6 (no typo here) from splitter to DVR#3 (good reception but no guide, VOD)

 10 foot RG6 jumper from splitter to Westell router 

 All are new cables. 30' and 120' are run through the attic and are not Verizon-supplied)

 The 120' jumper travels the entire inner circumference of the horseshoe-shaped house

 There is no convenient alternate path but burial between the ends of the two wings (which may be necessary)

 No additional splitters or amps

IP addresses are 192.168.1.100 and .101 for #1 and #2, with nothing for #3.

S/n ratio for #1 and #2 are about 37db, for #3 is about 34db (still "good" as reported by DVR menu)

Temporary insertion of a +7db gain Electroline (54-1000mhz) bi-directional amp  to #3 results in a s/n reading of about 37db, but still no guide. (I borrowed this from my antenna)

I assume the wire length is too long and Verizon is correct that nothing can be done. I plan to test that by using a 75' RG6 cable from the splitter in the Entertainment room to the Master bedroom (through windows) and temporarily connecting the router that way. If DVR#3 then doesn't get the guide or VOD, that implicates the cable length as cause. At present, using a splitter for DVR#3 and router works, but then of course DVR1 and DVR2 don't and I would not want the router in the bedroom anyway.

If you are wondering why this wasn't caught at installation time (as was I), I don't think we checked the extra functions for that one, just reception.

[Keyboards]

---

@GaryDoug wrote:

Temporary insertion of a +7db gain Electroline (54-1000mhz) bi-directional amp  to #3 results in a s/n reading of about 37db, but still no guide. (I borrowed this from my antenna)

---

So called "bi-directional" amplifiers (in general) won't work on the FiOS system.  Their retrun path is for frequencies below 50 MHz (as used by most canle companies) and the MoCA signal from the Verizon router (for the LAN) is at 1150 MHz.

Also an umemployed / self-employed EE.

[lasagna]

I don't think 120ft should be a limiting factor particularly if it's RG6 with no additional splits.  

Some things to try ... let's take the 4-way split out of the equation a minute as I've have all manner of grief with them finding that 3 high quality two-way splitters with short RG6 jumpers often do a better job even though logic would dictate that the 4-way is electrically equivalent if not superior.

Let's take everything except the router and the remote DVR out of the picture ....

ONT -> 2 way splitter -> Router on side A and remote DVR on side B

Nothing else.   Fire everything up and let's see if you can see the router.   If so, then we know we don't have a cable length or other issue.     Could be depending on where the router and DVR end up on the 4-way splitter that you could have as much as a 9db drop (plus cable length attenuation) which puts you on the very edge of it working.

Logic would seem to dictate that this is not an issue because when you move the router out to where the remote DVR is located, you essentially have the 120ft run between the router and the ONT -- same profile except that the router to ONT would be on 1000Mhz while STB to router would be on 1150Mhz.

It would be interesting to know if, when moving the router out to the remote DVR location, the other STB's can see the router.

BTW ... if the split test above works ... then what I'm shooting for having you create is:

ONT -> 2 way Splitter

2 way Splitter - side A -> 2 way splitter -> Router (side A) and Remote DVR (side B) via 120ft cable

2 way Splitter - side B -> 2 way splitter -> DVR #1 and DVR #2

This would minimize signal loss between the router and the remote DVR while still keeping it relatively close to the other DVR's.

[GaryDoug]

DVR#3 is receiving the guide and working with VOD now.

Using the 2-way splitter by itself with DVR3 and the router attached worked.

I tried the 3 X 2-way splitter setup, and DVR3 did not work again.

I returned to the first setup (2 lines above) and used the 4 way splitter to connect the rest of the equipment...

  Splitter1 from ONT goes to DVR3 and a short jumper to input of existing 4-way splitter

  4-way splitter outputs go to DVR1, DVR2, and the router.

  This method works for all 3, but I no longer see DVR1 or DVR2 via remote web access, only DVR3.

   I don't think I really care if I don't have remote access. Not much traveling here.

  Also on DVR3 there are a ton of "Corrected Byte" errors; but no picture problems that I can see.

   I probably didn't notice them before.

 I noticed that both splitters are 5-1000 MHZ rated, including the Verizon-supplied one.

 Tomorrow I will get some 2 GHZ ones and try them.

S/n readings now: DVR1 and DVR2: 36db, DVR3: 35db (averages)

 There were two important pieces of information that you guys provided that resulted in this fix:

  1. Knowing that all DVR/STB  communication was through the coax.

  2. And that the frequency for such is above 1 GHZ, which precludes the use of any common amps.

Thanks a bunch.

[lasagna]

Sounds good ... based on the experience with DVR#1 and DVR #2, it sounds like you're just on the edge of signal strength that one addtional splitter in the picture ends up doing in the connectivity.

So the configuration I was going for was:

ONT -> Splitter 1 inputer

Splitter 1 output  A to Splitter 2 input

Splitter 1 output B to Splitter 3 input

Splitter 2 output A to Router

Splitter 2 output B to DVR#3 (long run)

Splitter 3 output A to DVR #1

Splitter 3 output B to DVR #2

This preserves the relationship / distance between the router and DVR#3 (one split) and minimizes the distance to the ONT (two splits) and the other DVR's (three splits).

I think what you ended up with minimizes the distance between DVR#3 and the ONT (1 split), but leaves the router ad DVR's all the same distance away (three splits).  If that works however, good.

Now for the web access, you probably have an outdate UPnP definition on the router.   So, what you need to do is power down all the DVR's, go into the router and delete any UPnP entries on the firewall page, then power up one by one each DVR.   You should see rules get added to the router for each DVR as it comes online -- if not, this is the reason why the remote access isn't working, we'll need to figure out what the right rule is and then assign a permanent DHCP reservation for the STB in the router and manually add the rule (this is a bug which has been discussed on a different thread which I describe the solution for on another thread -- let me know if you can't find it, and I'll track down the thread).

Now ... what other problems were on your initial list that weren't working?

[GaryDoug]

lasagna,

The configuration you were going for (with three 2-way splitters) did not work for me. There was no change in performance. Only the 2-way to 4-way (now 3-way 2Ghz splitter) setup worked . I bet that the remote DVR with 120' wire didn't have enough ooomph to drive past 2 splitters to the ONT, assuming the ONT is involved in the communication somehow. I do see the ONT MOCA light flash every time I access via the web. (One of the convenient things about having the ONT installed behind the drapes in the same room with the PC.)

As for the remote web access, the 2Ghz splitters did not help that one. But I did notice that the status changed as I swapped things around, even when I returned the setup to original. Now I have web access on DVR1 but not the other two. Go figger. I'm not going to pursue that anymore though. I'm pretty sure I won't use it.

Also, I could not make sense of your instructions for checking the router settings, maybe because I have the Westell router instead of the ActionTec.

Thanks again

[lasagna]

Curious ... but if the arrangement is now working for you, great.

The Westell and ActionTec are pretty similar ... what I'm looking for is an output from the "Firewall Settings" page showing what port forwards have been dynamically created on the router.   The DVR's talk to the router and dynamically create a couple of port forwards which allow Verizon's head-end network (from which the DVR remote web stuff comes) to talk to the DVR.  This unfortunately occasionally gets confused and you have to manually help it out (there's a way to then make it so that problem will stay fixed once you get it working as well we've I've outlined on another thread).

If you're not using the remote web stuff, don't worry about it.

Oh ... and on your ONT question ... for the "IP network" piece, the ONT doesn't play into the picture for the "LAN" side (that's router and each of the DVR's) on 1150mhz.   There's a second relationship on 1000mhz between the router and the ONT which then carrys the "WAN" traffic.    Your DVR needs however to see the ONT on other frequencies so that it can get the TV channels.

Was there anything else we were trying to fix?

[watice]

lasanga..... here's one a bit more tricky for you..

For internet, I have ONT - ddwrt router - LANPORTS=a) switches, voip, etc. b) AT bridged

DDWRT has 63145UDP fwd to the DVR, and 4567TCP fwd to the AT

AT has a cat5 cable on the WAN hooked up to an old lowpowered hub to trick it into thinking it has a WAN connection, as well as a WAN static ip of my REAL wan ip from the ddwrt, and matching netmask. Default gw on the AT has been changed (via system shell) to be the ddwrt. Can ping the interwebz from the AT. Why o why doesn't remote dvr work? What am I missing? Does VZ leave an account tagged as "non default router" once you attempt to use a non default router?

[spacedebris]

disregard, I didnt see the second page of posts