MoCA 2.0 Actiontech ECB6000

[Friendly]

So what your describing is how I understood it to work as well. However, from my own testing it doesn't appear to be the case. I have a cable modem with moca 1.1 and two other nodes with the 6200 adapters. They all communicate at moca 1.1 speeds. As soon as I disconnect my cable modem with moca 1.1, communication increases between the moca 2.0 nodes to moca 2.0 speeds. Now that being said, at 1.1 speed my moca 2.0 adapters are still faster than my old moca 1.1 nodes. I attribute this to the Ethernet port going from 100 to 1000 allowing the adapter to fully utilize the moca 1.1 bandwidth. Still I am dissapointed that my moca 2.0 devices aren't communicating at moca 2.0 speed with the moca 1.1 modem present. Did you do something specific to get this working? The moca alliance page specifically has a statement that backs up your test, but I can't seem to get it to work. Wondering if its a limitation with these adapters or firmware.

Hi,
Back again, and I sort of have to back away from my earlier statement regarding a mixed network maintaining the MoCA 2.0 speeds. After thinking about your differing results, I connected one of the Verizon Branded/ Actiontec WCB3000N's (MoCA 1.1) and low and behold just like you the entire MoCA network dropped to MoCA 1.1 speeds. Apparently, there is something different in the Actiontec MoCA 1.1 products that causes this to happen. Further, when I simply pulled the power from the WCB3000, the network did not automatically return to MoCA 2.0 speeds, I had to reboot them to return to the 2.0 speeds. The MoCA 1.1 adapters I used, which seem to have no effect on the MoCA 2.0 speed links, were the Motorola Surfboard SMART Video Adapters and an off brand MyGica MC-2210, both are rated as MoCA 1.1 but the MyGica ones are not compliant with the standard and although they have the hardware configuration switch, there is no software to enable encription or change the default MoCA channel. They do appear to automatically adjust the channel if added to another established MoCA network. There one advantage is they are less expensive than the Actiontec or other available brands.
I would also expect that if you are using one of the older Actiontec/ Fios routers (Rev F-I) with MoCA Lan enabled, you will automatically be limited to MoCA 1.1 speeds. Not a lot of sense even buying the MoCA 2.0 adapters on one of those systems.

 

[adisor19]

Does anyone know of an online Canadian store that sells the bonded adapters ? I can't find it anywhere




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Friendly]

Does anyone know of an online Canadian store that sells the bonded adapters ? I can't find it anywhere
Hi,
You might check with Actiontec and see if they will sell to Canada directly.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stansoltz]

Does anyone know of an online Canadian store that sells the bonded adapters ? I can't find it anywhere




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B&H Photo will ship to Canada.

 

[zeek987]

Hi,
I have done quite a bit of testing...
...I used a pair of both the Bonded adapters and the standard MoCA 2.0 Actiontec adapters in my testing.

Friendly, would you be able to share with us any differences in performance (particularly speed) between the bonded (ECB6200) and unbonded (ECB6000) MoCA 2.0 kits?
Bonded <--> Bonded speeds?
unbonded <--> unbonded speeds?
Bonded<--> unbonded speeds?

 

[abolition]

Hi there, just wanted to share my experience.

I am in Europe, in The Netherlands to be precised. Been dealing with PLC until I saw this post and decided to give it a (expensive) try.

My main problem is that the room furthest appart from the living room is a wifi dark spot.

I had the tplink 6010 for a year or so. They got good reviews on this site and were afordable so I got a kit.

I have to say that the devices worked "ok" and did its job, but as with PLC is really hit or miss, when connected to a socket in the room, the link speed was 85mbps, real speed (speedtest.net) was about 13 up and down, dissapointing considering the internet speed is 200/20, but its just a bedroom.

Playing around with the sockets in the house the maximum I was able to squeeze from this set was a link speed of 300mbps but real speed of 100/100, however the socket was too far from the room and connection was about 10mbps and unreliable when using wifi. Furthermore as it was closer to the main router, devices would roam constantly connecting to the "slower" speed.

I got yesterday this set from amazon, I must say that it was as easy to set up as PLC, was a bit hesitant to buy it as I couldnt send it back, and wasnt sure if the coax instalation here (in europe) would be "compatible". I just connected them, upgraded using the firmware found in this thread (thanks for that), and did a speedtest over ethernet... 202/20.5 what can I say, its like being in the living room.

I did more tests using SMB between computers, and got about 52MBps down and 23 MBps up. Far from the design performance of gbit speeds, and from the review posted a couple of days ago, but still very satisfied with the purchase and the upgrade (remember PLC was yielding 50 times less speed). Not sure if using AFP or different computers (one of them is new with ssd and win 7 enterprise, the other is a 2008 dell laptop with p8400 4gb ram and 128gb crucial ssd and windows XP) would make a difference, dont think so, but didnt really need more speed yet to continue with the testing.

Even when the next upgrade to 500/50 mbits takes place (my provider is already testing this with business customers) this will still be the best purchase ever.

The only thing I am not sure I did correctly, is the connection setup of the modem via the "coax out" (I think it says something like TV/STB) of one of the moca adaptors.

The setup is as follows

Street coax to two way splitter (1)
Cable 1 goes to bedroom 1 for TV
Cable 2 goes to two way splitter(2)

From the splitter 2
Cable 3 goes to bedroom 2 with no wifi coverage, to moca adapter 2 via coax in and via ethernet to router
Cable 4 goes to living room to moca adapter 1 via coax in , and connects to modem via coax out - modem then connects back to ethernet port.

I am wondering if adding a third splitter in the living room (so that the splitter of the adaptor 1 would not be used) would improve the connection between the two MoCa devices, dont think so, but maybe you guys know better, and I am not sure what the quality of the signal would be for the modem after 3 splitters.

Anyhow, thanks for this post, it really made my day and wanted to share my experience.

 

[Friendly]

Friendly, would you be able to share with us any differences in performance (particularly speed) between the bonded (ECB6200) and unbonded (ECB6000) MoCA 2.0 kits?
Bonded <--> Bonded speeds?
unbonded <--> unbonded speeds?
Bonded<--> unbonded speeds?

Hi,
My speeds with the ECB6000 units topped out in the 400/400 Mbps range consistently. I have not been able to get good write speeds with the Bonded ECB6200Q units. The best I get are about 475/725 Mbps that is write/read. This is between i7 desktops both with SSD's and tested via Lan Speed Test (Lite) and a 1 GB file size. I know I should get better write speed but am not sure exactly what the problem might be, I suspect my 24 port switch but don't have another one to try.
If you send traffic from Bonded to un-bonded you get unbonded speeds.

 

[Friendly]

Hi there, just wanted to share my experience.

I am in Europe, in The Netherlands to be precised.
Even when the next upgrade to 500/50 mbits takes place (my provider is already testing this with business customers) this will still be the best purchase ever.

The only thing I am not sure I did correctly, is the connection setup of the modem via the "coax out" (I think it says something like TV/STB) of one of the moca adaptors.

The setup is as follows

Street coax to two way splitter (1)
Cable 1 goes to bedroom 1 for TV
Cable 2 goes to two way splitter(2)

From the splitter 2
Cable 3 goes to bedroom 2 with no wifi coverage, to moca adapter 2 via coax in and via ethernet to router
Cable 4 goes to living room to moca adapter 1 via coax in , and connects to modem via coax out - modem then connects back to ethernet port.

I am wondering if adding a third splitter in the living room (so that the splitter of the adaptor 1 would not be used) would improve the connection between the two MoCa devices, dont think so, but maybe you guys know better, and I am not sure what the quality of the signal would be for the modem after 3 splitters.

Anyhow, thanks for this post, it really made my day and wanted to share my experience.

Hi,
I think that the cable standards are pretty universal. The earliest gen MoCA devices often had issues, interference with standard cable boxes and cable modems, and a common solution was either using a separate splitter or or better yet, a diplexer to feed the 2 devices but I have not seen these kind of complaints with the next gen or latest gen devices. If your current setup is working I would not worry about it. If you later start getting loss or significant drops in your internet speed, consider getting a sat grade diplexer, run the sat side/port to your MoCA adapter and the antenna side/port to your cable modem and put a 750 Ohm F-type terminator on the open port of the adapter.
One thing you don't mention is the use of any MoCA POE (Point of Entry) or Whole Home DVR filter on your setup. This is kind of standard in the US. The filters will both stop your network traffic from escaping to someone on the adjoining coax system and eliminate interference issues on the cable company's equipment. A side benefit of the filters is that it tends to reflect back or strengthen the MoCA frequencies. In it's absence, you can often set encryption on the MoCA adapters, but not with the Actiontec ECB6000 because there is currently no configuration utility. I don't know about there use in Europe, but I would look on Ebay or Amazon and see about getting and using one. Put it on the input of the first splitter and you should be good.

 

[Alphasite]

Hi,
Back again, and I sort of have to back away from my earlier statement regarding a mixed network maintaining the MoCA 2.0 speeds. After thinking about your differing results, I connected one of the Verizon Branded/ Actiontec WCB3000N's (MoCA 1.1) and low and behold just like you the entire MoCA network dropped to MoCA 1.1 speeds. Apparently, there is something different in the Actiontec MoCA 1.1 products that causes this to happen. Further, when I simply pulled the power from the WCB3000, the network did not automatically return to MoCA 2.0 speeds, I had to reboot them to return to the 2.0 speeds. The MoCA 1.1 adapters I used, which seem to have no effect on the MoCA 2.0 speed links, were the Motorola Surfboard SMART Video Adapters and an off brand MyGica MC-2210, both are rated as MoCA 1.1 but the MyGica ones are not compliant with the standard and although they have the hardware configuration switch, there is no software to enable encription or change the default MoCA channel. They do appear to automatically adjust the channel if added to another established MoCA network. There one advantage is they are less expensive than the Actiontec or other available brands.
I would also expect that if you are using one of the older Actiontec/ Fios routers (Rev F-I) with MoCA Lan enabled, you will automatically be limited to MoCA 1.1 speeds. Not a lot of sense even buying the MoCA 2.0 adapters on one of those systems.

I am using an Actiontec ECB2500C with my ECB6200s without any issues, so it's not all Actiontec MoCA 1.1 products.

 

[Friendly]

I am using an Actiontec ECB2500C with my ECB6200s without any issues, so it's not all Actiontec MoCA 1.1 products.

Thanks for the heads up, I am glad to hear this. I have one of those and the older 2200's and the 4 Ethernet port one.....but they are all tucked away in a "safe place", I have no clue where exactly though. When I get ambitious, I start digging through boxes. I really hope that this WECB3000 is a bad penny and that most everything else works ok. I did try enabling MoCA on a Tivo mini, they are 1.1. That seemed to cause quite a performance hit on the 2.0 adapters, but it did not drop to the 1.1 speeds.

 

[Alphasite]

Thanks for the heads up, I am glad to hear this. I have one of those and the older 2200's and the 4 Ethernet port one.....but they are all tucked away in a "safe place", I have no clue where exactly though. When I get ambitious, I start digging through boxes. I really hope that this WECB3000 is a bad penny and that most everything else works ok. I did try enabling MoCA on a Tivo mini, they are 1.1. That seemed to cause quite a performance hit on the 2.0 adapters, but it did not drop to the 1.1 speeds.

I have a TiVo Mini and it hasn't caused any performance issues with my ECB6200s.

 

[abolition]

Hi,
I think that the cable standards are pretty universal. The earliest gen MoCA devices often had issues, interference with standard cable boxes and cable modems, and a common solution was either using a separate splitter or or better yet, a diplexer to feed the 2 devices but I have not seen these kind of complaints with the next gen or latest gen devices. If your current setup is working I would not worry about it. If you later start getting loss or significant drops in your internet speed, consider getting a sat grade diplexer, run the sat side/port to your MoCA adapter and the antenna side/port to your cable modem and put a 750 Ohm F-type terminator on the open port of the adapter.
One thing you don't mention is the use of any MoCA POE (Point of Entry) or Whole Home DVR filter on your setup. This is kind of standard in the US. The filters will both stop your network traffic from escaping to someone on the adjoining coax system and eliminate interference issues on the cable company's equipment. A side benefit of the filters is that it tends to reflect back or strengthen the MoCA frequencies. In it's absence, you can often set encryption on the MoCA adapters, but not with the Actiontec ECB6000 because there is currently no configuration utility. I don't know about there use in Europe, but I would look on Ebay or Amazon and see about getting and using one. Put it on the input of the first splitter and you should be good.

Hi, and thanks for the (very detailed!) answer. I have the ECB6200, hence the "dissapointment" in the speeds. I have made pictures of everything I could to provide further clarity.

This is the cable internet point of entry (the box with the green cable), every apartment in the building has a different one, I assume this means we have our own network and the traffic shouldnt scape. BTW, I called the cable company, previously UPC, now Ziggo, and they didnt know what MoCa was so they couldnt answer, but they kept saying that no neighbor sharing the same node could access my modem (I think they didnt understand I was sending unencrypted data over the coax line inside the apartment).

This is splitter 1 (connection comes from the upc box; cable 1 goes to splitter 2, cable 2 goes into master bedroom)

This is splitter 2 (cable in from splitter 1, cable 3 going to living room to adapter 1, cable 4 going to bedroom to adapter 2)

Continue in next post

 

[abolition]

Furthermore, the house came with a 7 way splitter (not powered); I have included a pic for reference, The technician from the cable company suggested not to use it as it would create too much interference in the modem and it would not allow it to get the full 200mbps down. He provided splitter 1 and 2, but I would also like to read your opinion (if you know), and if it makes sense to switch back to the house splitter.

Some more details. we do not have a DVR, or anything like that in the network, just a CI card that connects to the TV and then a normal TV antena cable. TV is 99% of the time off. And we do use sat tv, but it uses its own cable directly from the satelite dish to the sat receiver in the living room.

 

[Friendly]

Hi,
If you want to use a MoCA filter, recommended, you would place it on the input to the first 2 way splitter. If I understand you correctly anyway. I have no clue why they would put an 8 way splitter in there, but what are those 2 cables connected to it going? The quality of the coax connectors are not that good. I am pretty certain that these are inexpensive twist on-off types. No cable company here uses them. The one connector to the UPC box is the standard used here. They are called compression connectors and sometimes are equipped with weather seals. Not critical but not good either.
The splitter with the higher number of ports does not cause interference, but with each increase in ports, you divide the signal more and therefore increase the signal loss expressed in dB. You are better off using the 2 ways. On any active/ used splitter any open ports should be covered with a 75 Ohm F-type terminator. These prevent signal lose and possible interference to enter. Here they are readily available online and in most hardware stores.
Splitters are another possible issue. MoCA will work with "most" splitters even if they are not rated to the upper band 1125 to 1675 MHz but splitter quality does vary. The thing is there is a difference between "working" and optimally working. You might try to find a splitter rated for the MoCA 2.0 standard, but some people have also used Satellite grade splitters up to 2 GHz will work well also.
EDIT: If you got a pair of those adapters from Actiontec there should be a MoCA 2.0 splitter included, try use that to replace one of yours.

 

[abolition]

Hi,
If you want to use a MoCA filter, recommended, you would place it on the input to the first 2 way splitter. If I understand you correctly anyway. I have no clue why they would put an 8 way splitter in there, but what are those 2 cables connected to it going? The quality of the coax connectors are not that good. I am pretty certain that these are inexpensive twist on-off types. No cable company here uses them. The one connector to the UPC box is the standard used here. They are called compression connectors and sometimes are equipped with weather seals. Not critical but not good either.
The splitter with the higher number of ports does not cause interference, but with each increase in ports, you divide the signal more and therefore increase the signal loss expressed in dB. You are better off using the 2 ways. On any active/ used splitter any open ports should be covered with a 75 Ohm F-type terminator. These prevent signal lose and possible interference to enter. Here they are readily available online and in most hardware stores.
Splitters are another possible issue. MoCA will work with "most" splitters even if they are not rated to the upper band 1125 to 1675 MHz but splitter quality does vary. The thing is there is a difference between "working" and optimally working. You might try to find a splitter rated for the MoCA 2.0 standard, but some people have also used Satellite grade splitters up to 2 GHz will work well also.
EDIT: If you got a pair of those adapters from Actiontec there should be a MoCA 2.0 splitter included, try use that to replace one of yours.

Hi, and thanks for the quick reply, so the 1-7 way splitter that came with the house had originally 5 cables connected, 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen and 2 in the bedrooms, the ones currently connected are not in use (one from the living room and one from the kitchen), but I left them connected, rather than loose.

I currently dont have any open ports in the two splitters, so I dont think I need F-type terminators. I do have the splitter that came with the box, but I didnt use it since I had here already.

From the picture I see that the one being used is rated 5-1000mhz... so not in the frequencies you mentioned of 1125 - 1675. I will try to replace it as soon as I am home and post back the results.

Do I also need to use the cables provided in the box? I am using now something similar to these as the wall outlets are just standard antenas and not F type. (cables provided by the cable company).

Thanks!

 

[stevech]

7 way splitter with most ports unused need to be replaced with one that has just enough ports.
7 way is quite lossy.

 

[abolition]

I changed the splitter as suggested, and there was a big change in upload link speed.

However download (read) speed is limited to 55-60MBps... not sure if this is consistent with what you guys get.

 

[traderjay]

I changed the splitter as suggested, and there was a big change in upload link speed.

However download (read) speed is limited to 55-60MBps... not sure if this is consistent with what you guys get.

I am getting the opposite result - my receive (read speed) is in the 90~110 MB/s range while why write speed is stuck at 20 MB/s. Actiontec support has emailed me some pointers to troubleshoot and I'll try them out this weekend.

 

[abolition]

I am getting the opposite result - my receive (read speed) is in the 90~110 MB/s range while why write speed is stuck at 20 MB/s. Actiontec support has emailed me some pointers to troubleshoot and I'll try them out this weekend.

Decided to setup an FTP server on my mac mini server and did a speed test, these are the results... I am very much confused now :S

Download (one file at a time):

1000mb(1).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.00(s)/100.000.00Kbps
1000mb(10).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.15(s)/98.473.66Kbps
1000mb(2).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.06(s)/110.338.74Kbps
1000mb(3).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.10(s)/109.950.52Kbps
1000mb(4).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.67(s)/103.391.23Kbps
1000mb(5).bin 953.7 Mbytes/12.43(s)/80.431.11Kbps
1000mb(6).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.47(s)/95.538.36Kbps
1000mb(7).bin 953.7 Mbytes/28.83(s)/34.687.29Kbps
1000mb(8).bin 953.7 Mbytes/25.61(s)/39.039.63Kbps
1000mb(9).bin 953.7 Mbytes/11.57(s)/86.393.09Kbps
Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 02:17 (73.043.88 KBps)

Download (10 files at once):

Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 01:32 (106.148.10 KBps)

Upload (one file at a time):

1000mb(9).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.30(s)/107.561.30Kbps
1000mb(8).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.64(s)/103.723.41Kbps
1000mb(7).bin 953.7 Mbytes/14.24(s)/70.209.75Kbps
1000mb(6).bin 953.7 Mbytes/23.07(s)/43.340.59Kbps
1000mb(5).bin 953.7 Mbytes/26.43(s)/37.841.42Kbps
1000mb(4).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.77(s)/40.366.42Kbps
1000mb(3).bin 953.7 Mbytes/26.46(s)/37.797.08Kbps
1000mb(2).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.34(s)/41.091.28Kbps
1000mb(10).bin 953.7 Mbytes/15.05(s)/66.427.36Kbps
1000mb(1).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.71(s)/40.469.34Kbps
Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 03:18 (50.502.37 KBps)

Upload (10 files at once):

Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 02:25 (67.349.14 KBps)

 

[Friendly]

Decided to setup an FTP server on my mac mini server and did a speed test, these are the results... I am very much confused now :S

Download (one file at a time):

1000mb(1).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.00(s)/100.000.00Kbps
1000mb(10).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.15(s)/98.473.66Kbps
1000mb(2).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.06(s)/110.338.74Kbps
1000mb(3).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.10(s)/109.950.52Kbps
1000mb(4).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.67(s)/103.391.23Kbps
1000mb(5).bin 953.7 Mbytes/12.43(s)/80.431.11Kbps
1000mb(6).bin 953.7 Mbytes/10.47(s)/95.538.36Kbps
1000mb(7).bin 953.7 Mbytes/28.83(s)/34.687.29Kbps
1000mb(8).bin 953.7 Mbytes/25.61(s)/39.039.63Kbps
1000mb(9).bin 953.7 Mbytes/11.57(s)/86.393.09Kbps
Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 02:17 (73.043.88 KBps)

Download (10 files at once):

Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 01:32 (106.148.10 KBps)

Upload (one file at a time):

1000mb(9).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.30(s)/107.561.30Kbps
1000mb(8).bin 953.7 Mbytes/9.64(s)/103.723.41Kbps
1000mb(7).bin 953.7 Mbytes/14.24(s)/70.209.75Kbps
1000mb(6).bin 953.7 Mbytes/23.07(s)/43.340.59Kbps
1000mb(5).bin 953.7 Mbytes/26.43(s)/37.841.42Kbps
1000mb(4).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.77(s)/40.366.42Kbps
1000mb(3).bin 953.7 Mbytes/26.46(s)/37.797.08Kbps
1000mb(2).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.34(s)/41.091.28Kbps
1000mb(10).bin 953.7 Mbytes/15.05(s)/66.427.36Kbps
1000mb(1).bin 953.7 Mbytes/24.71(s)/40.469.34Kbps
Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 03:18 (50.502.37 KBps)

Upload (10 files at once):

Total: 9.3 G byte(s) in 02:25 (67.349.14 KBps)

Hi,
An FTP server is not the best way to do a speed test and trusting Windows transfer rates to give accurate speeds is not either. I would suggest you setup a share (Folder with sharing enabled) on your desktop and whatever other computer you are going to use for the test. Download the free Lan Speed Test (lite) on one or both, only one is needed but for double checking the results do both and run the test from each to the other via the 2 GUI's.
Here is a link, http://www.totusoft.com/lanspeed1.html
Use shares on the main or fastest drives, both computers will need Gigabit cards. Just select the remote location from your working machine to the target one's share. Use single files in the 1-2 GB size to run the tests. Ideally there should be no other network activity downloads/ streaming video's during the testing.
Regarding the 8 port switch, I thought I understood you to say that you had removed it from service and used the 2 way in its place...apparently not. The best practice is to use a splitter with only the number of ports you need for your connections to minimize signal loss. If a larger splitter is used, that's when you need to put the 75 Ohm terminator on any unused ones. Transferring several small files will always have a lower write speed and usually a lower transfer rate. If the 8 way is just feeding your first splitter just disconnect it and run the main to the first splitter. If your cabling can reach, you might use a 3 way instead of the two 2 ways.