New Contributor
•
21 Messages
CONTOUR DEMYSTIFIED
For those that have wondered just how difficult and expensive it might be to upgrade to the COX Contour whole home network service I hope this helps make the decision easier. I postponed my decision to upgrade because COX would not describe just what was required in the way of changes to my home cable network system and I didn’t want an installer ripping my house up until I understood exactly what was required.
For those technically inclined you can read up on MoCA and receive a better and more thorough technical description of that I’m going to try to explain here in smaller words. Simply put, MoCA describes how a simple lowpass filter, placed at the ingress to your house, can turn your existing coax cable distribution system into a cable receiver internetwork.
Your existing cable distribution system uses cable splitters to expand the single ingress cable to various cable modems, routers, cable TV receivers and cable ready TVs. These cable splitters work great in getting the TV, Internet and Phone signals where they need to get to downstream, but they do not permit cross node intercommunication required by a network.
MoCA describes how any cable receiver can send a signal upstream through the splitters, used as combiners, and ricochet off the lowpass filter installed on your cable ingress to then flow downstream to all your nodes. The filter performs a dual function in mirroring the network signals back into your house and preventing them from getting out onto the community cable distribution network and disturbing your neighbor’s home TV network.
Therefore all you need to make the Contour whole house network work is one ingress lowpass MoCA filter, your existing coax cable distribution network and Contour compliant receivers and/or DRV receivers. The receivers (with or w/o DVR) rent for $8.50/mo. and the Contour service is $19.95/mo. The installation is unfortunately an additional cost which STARTS at $60. Installation can be as easy as installing the little MoCA filter on your ingress and replacing your cable receivers, or as complex as a lot of hand holding can demand.
Some pitfalls to watch for include:
1. If you don’t have one already, Cox will most likely want to install a plastic box on the side of your house to contain the tiny MoCA lowpass filter, to protect it from the weather.
2. The Cox installer will most likely suggest that your whole network won’t work without replacing your entire cable distribution system with newer, better coax cables and splitters. This will most likely not be required. Insist that they give it a go w/o upgrading any cables and splitters first. You might give Cox a call before having the installation done and ask if the received signal strength of each of your existing cable receivers is good. They can see from the home office the signal strength at all of your existing cable receivers inside your house. If the signal is good beforehand, there is a good chance that the new networked setup will work just fine with your existing cables and splitters.
3. Make sure that the tech has called into the office and enabled all your new receivers for network service prior to leaving. My install tech failed to do this and it took several calls to get it straightened out. There is a simple test under Menu, Settings, Receivers, DVR Network, and View DVR Network that you can run to verify that you are good to go. You either can see your network, or you can’t.
Good luck.
Related Content
Closed
2
0
Closed
3
Closed
5
0
Closed
9
0
Closed
1
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
There are special splitters made that maximize cross-node intercommunication at MoCA's 1.1GHz-1.5GHz frequency. That, and rewiring with good, new, RG6 coax (especially in unseen areas [like in wall]) has cleared up WHDVR problems 100% of the time for me. Your quote of $19.95/month for Contour is only for those with 6-tuner DVRs. With 2-tuner Contour DVRs, service is only $11.99. http://www.cox.com/residential/tv/prices.cox
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
I upgraded from a 8240HDC running Passport to a 8642HDC running Contour (Trio at that time) just to get a few of the >860MHz/H.264 HD channels to which I was entitled. In the subsequent years, I have had none of the problems associated with the 9865HDC in a WHDVR atmosphere. I have no reason for a WHDVR network, as I currently have one room with a TV connected to cable. I wish we had a separate thread for problems with the 9865HDC without the WHDVR network.
My first run-in with 9865HDC/WHDVR problems was at a neighbor's house. He was having problems with sluggishness, all features not always working, etc., after having his 9865HDC/WHDVR "pro installation." I re-wired his WHDVR network (3-rooms) with new RG6 coax (the installers used the existing wire), and Holland Pro-M series splitters (http://www.hollandelectronics.com/catalog/upload_file/GHS-PRO-M.pdf
No more problems for him. That's over a year ago. I've done the same for a half-dozen or so other friends/neighbors. YMMV.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
Domino, thanks again for the MoCA friendly splitter link. Do you know whether the neighbor you mentioned had a MoCA lowpass filter added to the cable ingress of his house at the time of the "pro installation"? The reason I ask is that I was originally given an 9865HDC WHDVR and (2) 4742HDC's WH HD Receivers and left on my own. I was not originally given a MoCA lowpass filter. After Cox came out recently to replaced one of the (2) 4742HDC WH HD Receivers that died during a power outage, I still didn't get a MoCA lowpass filter. Anyway, I'd be curious if you saw a MoCA lowpass filter.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
Are you sure? Around here, the filter is usually up on the telephone pole. The filter is only needed to keep your MoCA data from screwing up the rest of your neighborhood. Speaking of filters, on two occasions I've heard reports that DirecTV filters of some sort that weren't removed messed up Cox WHVCR networks. Been meaning to investigate this, but it's on a back burner.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
Domino, I'm sure. Below is a block diagram of my home coax cable distribution system. The circles are splitters and everything else is labeled. None of my 3 MoCA Devices (Contour Receivers) could communicate reliably with each other because of the old non-MoCA compliant splitters used. Each splitter has nearly 30dB isolation, output port to output port. The magic here comes from the MoCA POE lowpass filter. The filter is a 1002 MHz lowpass filter. That means that TV, Internet and Phone signals, all below 1002 MHz, pass unimpeded, in and out. A lowpass filter exhibits a high VSWR above cutoff. This simply means that above 1002 MHz, where the MoCA communications signals are, the lowpass filter reflects signals. If you look below, you can see that each of my 3 Contour receivers communicate with very little loss by sending MoCA signals upstream to the MoCA filter and then back downstream to all other devices. That is how you can operate a network in spite of having old high isolation splitters. The 3 examples on the bottom of the figure show each of the 3 Contour receivers sending MoCA data to the other 2. In fact the most important function of the MoCA lowpass filter isn't isolating you from your neighbor, but making your own network work!
Of course one can rip out all the old Radio Shack coax and splitters and replace them with newer RG6 coax and MoCA enhanced splitters, but this is expensive, disruptive and time consuming. One thing I'm concerned about is a policy of putting MoCA lowpass filters out on the pole. It's (a) hard to know that the filter is really there, and (b) it's now potentially hundreds of round trip feet further from your first splitter, where it could be causing you a dozen dB of MoCA signal loss! My guess is that your neighbor either (a) didn't actually have a MoCA lowpass filter up on the pole, or (b) he suffered enough loss to his MoCA signals traveling all the way out to the pole and back to cause the intermittent issues that you managed to solve with new hardware and a lot of effort.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
I'm afraid that your reasoning for the POE filter is somewhat misguided.
http://www.extreme-broadband.com/moca-products.html "The POE Filter stops the higher MoCA frequencies from escaping the home and into the drop."
http://mocablog.net/2010/06/29/moca-poe-filter-and-splitters-explained/
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/video/filters/7016817.pdf
http://www.ppc-online.com/Products/Traps_Filters/moca.cfm
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/video/at_home/Cable_Accessories/4031235_B.pdf
etc.
Your faith in existing wiring, particularly in-wall wiring, may be misguided as well. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I've found. "Hand-crafted" splitters, 50 ohm Beldin coax, etc. Don't forget: MoCA signals go up to 1.5GHz. That's DOUBLE what most cable coax normally carries. What is OK for a 500MHz-750MHz video signal could well be DEATH to a MoCA network.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
Domino, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate all the links. I started reviewing the the 1st link when I encountered the following slide.
In the 2nd sentence, they clearly mention that an express purpose of the MoCA POE filter is to reflect MoCA signals back into your network. The only purpose of my first post was to point out that it is possible for a simple coax distribution system to support a MoCA network with only the addition of the MoCA POE filter. A simple coax distribution system w/o this filter has little chance of working due to the port-to-port isolation in simple splitters. I have no doubt that there are complicated coax distribution systems out there that take significant effort to make work, but if one doesn't start by installing the MoCA filter at the ingress, between the groung point and the 1st splitter, they really don't understand how MoCA works and are facing an uphill battle.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
No, they mention that it is "specifically designed to reflect the MoCA signals back..." It doesn't shunt the signals to ground like most filters do, but is designed to reflect the signals back into the circuit. What signals? The high frequency signals that it prevented from leaving the home. BIG difference.
A coax distribution system can support MoCA without a POE filter. The POE filter just keeps MoCA data from other customers using the same tap (as explained in one of the URLs I gave you.) The fact that a POE filter can (and often is) installed at the tap (which may be separated from the house by 100' of coax cable.) MoCA networks don't rely on reflected signals from these filters.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
Domino, I'm sorry but any "BIG difference" that you glean between the following:
(a)"reflect the MoCA signals back into the home..." - MoCA briefing slide
(b)"the MoCA POE filter is to reflect MoCA signals back into your network" - my comment
(c)"reflect the signals back into the circuit" - your comment
alludes me. I think we are saying the same thing. Although you do make it sound like there is no utility to the MoCA (Ethernet) packets reflecting off the MoCA POE lowpass filter. In fact, all the upstream MoCA (Ethernet) packets reflecting off the MoCA POE lowpass filter re-engage the MoCA network traveling downstream, where they now can access all the other MoCA nodes. This alone can produce working networks.
I could again use your help in locating a MoCA splitter. The Holland unit you mentioned earlier states that it has low port-to-port isolation, but when you look at the specs, it appears to have 25 - 30 dB port-to-port isolation at the MoCA frequencies. This would be typical for a non-MoCA splitter. Am I misunderstanding the spec, or does this unit really not promote output port-to-port communications?
Also, relative to your comment "MoCA networks don't rely on reflected signals from these filters", using your reference:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/video/at_home/Cable_Accessories/4031235_B.pdf
the first example setup shows precisely that. The ordinary splitter shown here would offer 30 dB port-to-port isolation, yet because of the almost lossless reflection by the POE MoCA lowpass filter, the simple setup works well. Also my own home setup is an example of working network that only uses a POE MoCA lowpass filter and works well.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
2.8K Messages
Not really. I'm saying that the POE filter's main job is to keep MoCA data out of outgoing cable line (which is used by other customers.) The fact that it reflects the signal rather than shunting it to ground is secondary. The network does not rely on this reflected signal for operation. I can find no reference stating that it does, while every reference states its purpose is to keep MoCA data from entering the neighboring lines.
Can? Yes. Does it alone create reliable networks? Not in my experience.
You're misreading the specs. The MoCA frequency isolation spec is a maximum spec (which means it's usually much lower), while the 1GHz and lower isolation specs are minimum specs (which means it's usually much higher.)
It's not unusual to see port-to-port isolation of 70dB or higher in normal splitters. And the improved performance I've attained by using the Moca splitter tells me that MoCA frequency isolation is much lower than the given maximum spec.
0
0
BobinVA
New Contributor
•
21 Messages
Domino, it looks like at least we agree on the 2 functions of the MoCA POE lowpass filter. I don't see debating which of the 2 is the main function is worth the lost electrons.
I'm still confused by the Holland MoCA enhanced splitter spec. Since the only thing that segregates a MoCA enhanced splitter from a typical splitter would be it's low port-to-port isolation, I find the Holland splitter spec rather pathetic in this regards. Telling a perspective buyer that the MoCA band port-to-port isolation could be higher than it's below 1GHz band isolation doesn't say much for it's ability to solve MoCA issues. I know that I'm comparing TV band minimums with MoCA band maximums, but this is supposedly a brag sheet and lets face it - it doesn't sell.
Also lets assume that the Holland splitter does exibit good port-to-port connectivity at some frequencies above 1002MHz, yet it could also be as bad as -30dB, that would imply that there could be quite a dynamic frequency-attenuation swing across the MoCA band. Dynamic frequency-attenuation bands tend to cause major inter-symbol interferance in digital transmissions systems. In short, if this spec sheet is supposed to sell me, it doesn't. I think I'll keep looking for a MoCA enhanced splitter that actually specifies what what the MoCA band port-to-port isolation is, and not what it isn't.
0
0