Thinking of deploying a MoCa 2.5 network, what else needs to be done?

[andydsm]

maybe. all you can do is try. there is anecdotal evidence that some do and some cause issues.
Try US amazon and see what the cost is.

What issues should I be aware of, that might be caused by the splitter?

 

[degrub]

modems don't sync or sync at lower bitrate

 

[andydsm]

modems don't sync or sync at lower bitrate

Understood, thanks for the info

 

[krkaufman]

Can't find local sellers for the Holland stuff or anything mentioning MoCa 2.5 certification.

There isn’t any official certification for MoCA splitters; there’s barely any certification for MoCA adapters.

Splitters optimized for satellite are sub-optimal for MoCA owing to the conflicting needs relative to output port isolation for the shared frequency range — with MoCA’s 1125-1675 MHz falling within the wider 950-2150 MHz for satellite. Satellite prefers high isolation, while MoCA fares better with low output port isolation to facilitate port hopping; that is, MoCA signals passing directly between output ports of a given splitter. (see pgs. 10-23 of this PDF’d “MoCA Basics” slide presentation; splitter specs recommendations on pg. 13)

That said (and as degrub suggested), you could try it; given the simplicity of the setup …

The entire network, as it's being envisioned, will need only one 1 input 2 output splitter, all other connections will be simple barrel splice

… you may get acceptable performance using the 2-way “satellite” splitter, since MoCA has the ability to adjust power levels to accommodate sub-optimal conditions.

Overthinking it … Worst case, if you can’t find a MoCA-optimized 2-way but have access to MoCA filters, you could test/compare whether the reflective benefit of a MoCA filter (as described in the linked “MoCA Basics” slideset) installed on the input port of a 3-way splitter performs any better overall than the 2-way, with the MoCA filter presumably offering the MoCA signals a more efficient path than port hopping between the “satellite” splitter outputs. (related comment) Example: alternative scheme using MoCA filter:

​

What issues should I be aware of, that might be caused by the splitter?

* Worst case, the MoCA adapters fail to establish or maintain a link;
* less dramatic symptom would be reduced PHY bitrates (resulting in sub-optimal effective throughput);
* least noticeable symptom would be the MoCA adapters having to use more power to maintain the targeted bitrates in order to deliver optimal effective throughput. (Absent MoCA adapter diagnostics making any PHY rate and power level differences between alternative configurations clear/obvious, an electrical monitoring gadget like a Kill-a-Watt could be used to compare power consumption for a MoCA adapter to assess its efficiency.)

 

[andydsm]

There isn’t any official certification for MoCA splitters; there’s barely any certification for MoCA adapters.

Splitters optimized for satellite are sub-optimal for MoCA owing to the conflicting needs relative to output port isolation for the shared frequency range — with MoCA’s 1125-1675 MHz falling within the wider 950-2150 MHz for satellite. Satellite prefers high isolation, while MoCA fares better with low output port isolation to facilitate port hopping; that is, MoCA signals passing directly between output ports of a given splitter. (see pgs. 10-23 of this PDF’d “MoCA Basics” slide presentation; splitter specs recommendations on pg. 13)

That said (and as degrub suggested), you could try it; given the simplicity of the setup …

… you may get acceptable performance using the 2-way “satellite” splitter, since MoCA has the ability to adjust power levels to accommodate sub-optimal conditions.

Overthinking it … Worst case, if you can’t find a MoCA-optimized 2-way but have access to MoCA filters, you could test/compare whether the reflective benefit of a MoCA filter (as described in the linked “MoCA Basics” slideset) installed on the input port of a 3-way splitter performs any better overall than the 2-way, with the MoCA filter presumably offering the MoCA signals a more efficient path than port hopping between the “satellite” splitter outputs. (relatated comment) Example: alternative scheme using MoCA filter:

View attachment 59787​

* Worst case, the MoCA adapters fail to establish or maintain a link;
* less dramatic symptom would be reduced PHY bitrates (resulting in sub-optimal effective throughput);
* least noticeable symptom would be the MoCA adapters having to use more power to maintain the targeted bitrates in order to deliver optimal effective throughput. (Absent MoCA adapter diagnostics making any PHY rate and power level differences between alternative configurations clear/obvious, an electrical monitoring gadget like a Kill-a-Watt could be used to compare power consumption for a MoCA adapter to assess its efficiency.)

Stellar reply! Thank you so much for taking your time to detail everything I needed to know. I will give it a go with the satellite splitter and hope for the best. If it doesn't work out, well I'll beg a friend or acquaintance that is flying back from the US to throw a 2 way MoCa splitter in their luggage.
I don't know why, but it seems that no MoCa equipment is easily accessible in the EU. For example, adapters (if found somewhere) are way, way overpriced and no hardware or equipment can be easily found (still scouring the web). I guess this standard hasn't broken ground here which is weird, as there are tons of older homes, without LAN cabling.

 

[degrub]

Amazon or Ebay won't ship to your country ?
i have received plenty of items over the years going the other direction.

 

[andydsm]

Amazon or Ebay won't ship to your country ?
i have received plenty of items over the years going the other direction.

They do ship, the issue is the astronomical shipping + import costs.