Actiontec Moca 2.0 issue Please help me

[krkaufman]

Umm its MBps not mbps.

I was getting 107-110MBps

Chuckle. Thanks. (FYI... “mbps” would be milli-bits per second. Network throughput is typically ref’d as Mbps.)

Ok, that’s closer to expected for bonded MoCA 2.0. (856-880 Mbps) And it should be TURBO-enabled, since you’re exceeding 800 Mbps.)

 

[Unibrowser]

I fully understand that this thread is super important for people in the future. So I will also share how to access these. On your computer go to network adapter settings and edit the IPV4 option. Enter what you see in this screen shot. Then in your web browser address bar type, 192.168.144.30

You must connect the adapter to the ethernet port on your computer directly.

 

[Unibrowser]

Chuckle. Thanks. (FYI... “mbps” would be milli-bits per second. Network throughput is typically ref’d as Mbps.)

Ok, that’s closer to expected for bonded MoCA 2.0. (856-880 Mbps) And it should be TURBO-enabled, since you’re exceeding 800 Mbps.)

So I could likely push these even farther by installing the filter and then switching them back to Extended D? And yes I only have 2 adapters, so it's just A to B. (For now)

 

[krkaufman]

But I will still wait for the filter on Saturday and try it out on the other band.

I *would* recommend getting a snapshot of your MoCA stats for the current setup, for comparison to the test using the MoCA filter and full Extended Band D — which really just means your MoCA network would be operating at lower frequencies (1125-1350 MHz*), where there’s less attenuation.

* as compared to 1350-1575 MHz

 

[krkaufman]

So I could likely push these even farther by installing the filter and then switching them back to Extended D? And yes I only have 2 adapters, so it's just A to B. (For now)

No, maybe not, as explained above:

If he checks the stats on either adapter, they’re very likely operating at their max/targeted PHY rate ... somewhere near 700 Mbps (x2 channels) ... but shifting back to the full Extended D Band, allowed by use of the protective MoCa filter on the modem, would allow the adapters to operate at a lower power level (i.e. function more efficiently).

You may not see a change in throughput (you may!), but you’d likely see a change in power levels ... meaning the MoCA adapters aren’t having to work as hard to achieve the targeted PHY rate.

This is why I recommend getting a stats snapshot, rather than only running a speed test.

 

[Unibrowser]

No, maybe not, as explained above:

​

You may not see a change in throughput (you may), but you’d likely see a change in power levels ... meaning the MoCA adapters aren’t having to work as hard to achieve the targeted PHY rate.

This is why I recommend getting a stats snapshot, rather than only running a speed test.

 

[krkaufman]

View attachment 18529

Stats look pretty good. TX power is reduced, approaching the max power reduction of -30 dBm. (rather than the +3 dBm TX max power boost, and a red flag) And 641 is approaching the max rate of 700 Mbps.

 

[Unibrowser]

Stats look pretty good. TX power is reduced, approaching the max power reduction of -30 dBm. (+3 dBm TX power is the max boost, and a red flag) And 641 is approaching the max rate of 700 Mbps.

I tested the speed by moving a large movie file to my NAS. It was very steady at 110 Megabytes per second(to avoid confusion lol). I'm super happy with it. If I can get it even higher and/or more power efficient that will be icing on the cake.

 

[krkaufman]

If I can get it even higher and/or more power efficient that will be icing on the cake.

If nothing else, the filter on the modem is just simpler, too, allowing the MoCA adapters to be used without any special configuration ... and would preserve the whole Moca spectrum for use, beneficial if the goCoax MocA 2.5 adapters ever return to the shelves.

 

[krkaufman]

Stats look pretty good. TX power is reduced, approaching the max power reduction of -30 dBm. (rather than the +3 dBm TX max power boost, and a red flag) And 641 is approaching the max rate of 700 Mbps.

Of course, another test you could perform, as a baseline, would be to check/capture the stats on one of the adapters when the adapters are direct-connected using a short coax cable, rather than across your coax plant. You’d then know the best possible stats you could see from the devices.

And you could do so for both the D-High and full Extended Band-D configurations, to see how they differ even over a direct connection.

 

[krkaufman]

I’m aware of the spec; I just hadn’t seen any recent retail MoCA adapters (aside from the Actiontec ECB3500T) capable of more than Band D operation. And I hadn’t seen this as an advertised feature.

And I know I’d read the ECB6200 specs at some point, which only list Extended Band D as supported...

LAN Connections
Coax In Frequency Range - Extended D-band: 1125MHz ~ 1675MHz;
 Full Port Range: 5MHz ~ 2150MHz
TV/STB Out Frequency Range - 5MHz ~ 1002MH​

So the device either supports more than is marketed, or the firmware team failed to clean-up the code. I’d prefer the former, but it would seem to be the latter, given the TV/STB Out pass-through port’s specs. If the adapter uses a built-in diplexer, the stop-band frequencies aren’t going to change based on the “RF Band” option selected via the adapter’s configuration UI.

 

[krkaufman]

Of course, another test you could perform, as a baseline, would be to check/capture the stats on one of the adapters when the adapters are direct-connected using a short coax cable, rather than across your coax plant. You’d then know the best possible stats you could see from the devices.

And you could do so for both the D-High and full Extended Band-D configurations, to see how they differ even over a direct connection.

p.s. @Unibrowser, if you try this direct-connect test between your ECB6200 adapters, as a follow up, it would be interesting to hear what happens if you try setting both adapters to one of the MoCA bands outside D Band (i.e. C4, E, F or H). And if the adapters appear to link, as indicated by the LED status light on the housing, a stats screenshot would be valuable.

 

[Unibrowser]

@krkaufman

Its Saturday morning. Just got the other Moca filter. Put it on the back of the modem, ran a speed test, perfect. Brought the adapters back into Band D Extended. But, this time the RF channel stayed at 1400. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Unibrowser]

@krkaufman

I power cycled it and now it went to RF channel 1200 then on screen went back to 1400. Must be actively finding the best channel.

 

[Unibrowser]

Here is the new Node info. Looks pretty much the same

 

[Unibrowser]

And I know I’d read the ECB6200 specs at some point, which only list Extended Band D as supported...

LAN Connections
Coax In Frequency Range - Extended D-band: 1125MHz ~ 1675MHz;
 Full Port Range: 5MHz ~ 2150MHz
TV/STB Out Frequency Range - 5MHz ~ 1002MH​

So the device either supports more than is marketed, or the firmware team failed to clean-up the code. I’d prefer the former, but it would seem to be the latter, given the TV/STB Out pass-through port’s specs. If the adapter uses a built-in diplexer, the stop-band frequencies aren’t going to change based on the “RF Band” option selected via the adapter’s configuration UI.

I wonder if the other bands listed would make them run similar to my Broadband DECA's I had when I had DirecTV. Moca wasn't an option at the time because Satellite runs on the higher end also.

 

[krkaufman]

I wonder if the other bands listed would make them run similar to my Broadband DECA's I had when I had DirecTV. Moca wasn't an option at the time because Satellite runs on the higher end also.

A DECA (DirecTV Ethernet Coaxial Adapter) device uses MoCA ... just using MoCA Band E, a different frequency range than the MoCA gear built to coexist with OTA and cable (Band D).

Similarly, DISH uses Band F, and FiOS uses channel C4 (just one of 4 channels in Band C) for MoCA WAN connections.

I’m especially curious about whether the adapters could link via Band/channel C4, since it would be a simple alternative to linking a third-party router to an ONT via a coax connection — in place of using a FiOS gateway reconfigured to just supply the WAN connection.

 

[krkaufman]

@krkaufman

I power cycled it and now it went to RF channel 1200 then on screen went back to 1400. Must be actively finding the best channel.

When you select the RF Band, is the channel also available as a drop-down?

 

[Unibrowser]

When you select the RF Band, is the channel also available as a drop-down?

No you have to type in a value manually

 

[Unibrowser]

A DECA (DirecTV Ethernet Coaxial Adapter) device uses MoCA ... just using MoCA Band E, a different frequency range than the MoCA gear built to coexist with OTA and cable (Band D).

Similarly, DISH uses Band F, and FiOS uses channel C4 (just one of 4 channels in Band C) for MoCA WAN connections.

I’m especially curious about whether the adapters could link via Band/channel C4, since it would be a simple alternative to linking a third-party router to an ONT via a coax connection — in place of using a FiOS gateway reconfigured to just supply the WAN connection.

I could try the C4 if you would like