MoCA vs HomePNA/HCA

[edavid]

Has anyone benchmarked current HCNA bridges against MoCA 1.x bridges?

I did find this thread, but it's from 2008, so I was hoping for more recent information.

This is for a point to point link over "dark coax", so I don't care about compatibility with anything else. HCNA bridges like the TrendNet TPA-311 seem quite a bit cheaper (~$45 each?) and more available than MoCA bridges ($65 up?), so I don't want to spend the extra money unless I'll get better throughput.

 

[stevech]

MoCA will be far less problematic because the coax media is virtually noise free.

 

[edavid]

MoCA will be far less problematic because the coax media is virtually noise free.

I don't understand what you are saying - both alternatives run on coax.

 

[Rob Gelphman]

Has anyone benchmarked current HCNA bridges against MoCA 1.x bridges?

I did find this thread, but it's from 2008, so I was hoping for more recent information.

This is for a point to point link over "dark coax", so I don't care about compatibility with anything else. HCNA bridges like the TrendNet TPA-311 seem quite a bit cheaper (~$45 each?) and more available than MoCA bridges ($65 up?), so I don't want to spend the extra money unless I'll get better throughput.

Sorry for late reply. MoCA 1.1 devices guarantee 175 Mbps net or actual throughputs. Adapters with MoCA technology are available from Actiontec, D-Link and Netgear in retail now.

Recognizing that everyone wants validated test results, we publish ours for MoCA 1.0 on our websites, mocalliance.org and moca4installers.org for public access. No registration required.

MoCA 2.0 is ratified and we are putting final touches on test plan, but it is not available yet. We do not expect to see retail or installer specific products with MoCA 2.0 for at least a year but that is dependent on demand. For now, we see MoCA 2.0 as an operator driven spec.

Rest assured however, there is backward interoperability between 2.0 and 1.0/1.1. 2.0 will recognize and work with 1.0/1.1 devices. This is more than backward compatibility, which others might claim. The two tend to be used interchangeably but it can be misleading.

Hope that answers your question about MoCA 2.0. Just so you know, HPNA, which does work over coax, has no plans to extend the spec. There will not be an evolution from the current 3.1 version.

 

[edavid]

Sorry for late reply. MoCA 1.1 devices guarantee 175 Mbps net or actual throughputs.

Thanks for the reply. What's the difference between MoCA 1.0 and MoCA 1.1 throughput?

Just so you know, HPNA, which does work over coax, has no plans to extend the spec. There will not be an evolution from the current 3.1 version.

Great, your vaporware is much better than their vaporware G.hn's vaporware is even better though.

Has MoCA benchmarked MoCA 1.X vs. HCNA 3.X?

 

[StratmanX]

MoCA 1.1 devices guarantee 175 Mbps net or actual throughputs.

I want to say it is great to see you participating on the forum. Most people with similar credentials as you would take th time to add your voice on a consumer driven forum. Thank you!

Just wondering, how can anyone or entity "guarantee" throughputs given the enormous number of variabilities that can exist in a home environment which may affect or even prevent performance of a MoCA device?

 

[stevech]

MoCA has far fewer noise and interference issues to deal with than does AC power line IP.

 

[edavid]

MoCA has far fewer noise and interference issues to deal with than does AC power line IP.

No kidding. Maybe you didn't know that HPNA also works over coax?

 

[stevech]

Nope. I'm out of it. Didn't know there were consumer market HPNA over coax products.
Google told me so.
http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=bXSfT9mXB8OfiQKU76CvAQ&ved=0CG0Q8wIwAg
and on eBay.

I know now!

 

[colinbowern]

MoCA 2.0 is ratified and we are putting final touches on test plan, but it is not available yet. We do not expect to see retail or installer specific products with MoCA 2.0 for at least a year but that is dependent on demand. For now, we see MoCA 2.0 as an operator driven spec.

Any update on adapters available to end users?