Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This may have been discussed somewhere however my searches have come up empty with useful information about it.

Can the Shaw Gateway system be connected together using Cat5 only? IE: each of the portal boxes plugging back to the main PVR unit using an individual cat5 per portal. None of this would be connected to my home computer network, it would just be dedicated solely to the Gateway system.

The reason I ask is I am contemplating switching from Telus optik (which is currently installed using cat5) over to the Shaw Gateway system but only have Cat5 wires running to each tv location in the house. There is no coax and it would be very difficult to run at this point.

The shaw rep I was talking to claims that the portal units can be connected via WIFI, but I sense that would be problematic if at all possible. I am scheduled for install on Jan 12th and want to know ahead of time if I am wasting my time if the installer gets here and wants to try and run coax all over the place.

Also, can someone please clear up the following:

1) Is DLNA available yet? If not, when will it be?
2) Is there an iphone/android app available yet? If not, when will it be?
2) When is the next major update scheduled to be released to fix all these known issues I keep reading about here in the forums?

Thanks for the time and info...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
Wow, you ask a lot of good questions, probc. I'll try and answer them.

First, you will be 'wasting your time' with an install on the 12th if you can't have coax run since the Cat5/6 option is not yet enabled. This will be an option available with the next code release so you might want to wait a few weeks more(see below for more info) and then you can forget about needing coax.

The 'wireless' option is supposed to be in the next code release also but but I don't believe the Portals will communicate with the Gateway 'wirelessly'. I could be wrong about this but I think this is how it is, for now anyway.

To answer your other questions:
1) Is DLNA available yet? If not, when will it be?
No. I believe it will be in the next code release.

2) Is there an iphone/android app available yet? If not, when will it be?
No. There is currently no info on when this might be available but my guess is 'sooner than later' (note: No, I don't mean 'sooner or later')

2)[3, actually;)] When is the next major update scheduled to be released to fix all these known issues I keep reading about here in the forums?
If I had that answer, I would be every Gateway owner or potential owner's favourite poster here(If I'm not already;)). Again, sooner than later is the best I can say and that is hopefully before the end of Feb and maybe even before the end of this month. Only Shaw knows for sure and they may not even have a date set yet. I know there were some big issues that had to be addressed but there may be a 'double update' happen when it finally does come through.

So, while your initial question is worthy of this separate thread, all the others are well represented in existing threads that it does seem you are aware of and have been reading. Once the new code enables the ability to connect Portals via ethernet, this will be the place to discuss it. I'd suggest you keep watching the other threads, especially the main Gateway one(iS2+ right now), for info on when the code will be released. When the Cat5 connectivity is enabled, if you do decide to go that route, please post your experiences here so all can benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for reply Jet. I plan to let Shaw still come for the installation and see what happens once they find out the house has no coax (other than the main line coming in for my current internet connection). Not sure what the hold is in releasing updates to the system as basic stuff like the usage of the RJ45 ports, DLNA, etc. should already have been available. And not having iphone/android apps tells me Shaw is behind the 8 ball here in keeping up with current trends. It surprises me that somelike Telus can be called a leader/innovator at this point with Shaw struggling to keep up.

I might be off the mark here, but I am certainly learning more about the differences between the Gateway system compared to the Optik system. Come this Thursday I will be able to provide a hands-on comparison between the two as both will be running in my house ( i hope).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
There is a thread for comparing the two already; Comparing Telus Optik to Shaw Gateway, so I look forward to reading your posts there once you have the Gateway working.

As for why the Gateway isn't further along than it is right now, Shaw is trying to do something they never have before and it is having to work across their existing systems so 'getting it right' is important for both them and us. They don't want to enable features that will be full of security risks for them or us. I understand we all want it 'now' but I want it 'right' and don't mind waiting a little longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Like I said, think of it more as an 'input'. Sure, there is two-way communication through that port but the Portal is an 'end device' rather than a link to the network. It's more like a Blu-Ray player with an Ethernet port.
I think it would be a foolish move on their part to limit that type of ability.
Seeing as they (the GW portal) is/are IP based devices, it would be a logical progression to what I have been alluded too..
But I guess with the WIFI ability it really doesn't matter a whole bunch..

Like I said...time will tell...
The hardware seems to be in place, its all in how it gets implemented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
I don't think it's a case of intentionally 'limiting' it but rather it was never intended to do that. At least that's how I understand it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
There is no IP traffic over the MoCA network though so that's why the RJ45 can't act as an 'extension'.
I think the traffic over the MoCA network is IP.

The diagnostic LAN screen shows:
Type: MoCA
IP address: 192.168.0.3 (My second portal IP address)

My gateway IP address is IP is 192.168.0.1

After the RJ45 ethernet connection is enabled, any traffic to/from the portal RJ45 will be routed through the MoCA interface to the Gateway. The Gateway wireless data can be routed to the correct portal using IP address.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
Ya, I got to thinking about that afterwards. That 'IP traffic' is more of an 'internal' or 'proprietary' type, I believe. All I know is; what people are hoping for is not what they are going to get if they are expecting to be able to extend their Ethernet using the Portals as a connection point at the end of the coax. The system just isn't designed that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Curiosity got the best of me, so I opened and looked and the circuitry in the Portal.
There seems to be a definite connection from the RJ45 to the circuits near the input of the F connector.
There also does not seem to be any "router" type of IC's or any related circuitry.

But I guess if we think about it some, the gateway is acting as the router in this system, and for the portal to act as a IP connection it would also need to act as a router of some kind. :(

It looks to me that the portal is basically just a dumb terminal..it would need much more smarts to do what we(I) are(were) hoping for.

Bummer! Oh well I guess all we can hope for is a robust WIFI system,...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
After pointing this out to my friend at Shaw, he profusely apologized for misleading me..:mad:..meh..

On thing he did point out though was that once this is enabled, Shaw will not be providing support for it..you will be on your own if you decide to use your home network to connect the gateway to the portals..

I guess that makes sense, to keep things simple for their CRS...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
Ya, same deal as their internet service. If you can connect to their modem, that's good enough for them. At least they will be consistent with that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Wow this is interesting.

So this means I no longer need a COAX connection to use a portal to watch TV once this new update is released?

I have shaw coming to setup some additional portal boxes and I also have them installing one additional TV outlet, can I just scrap the TV outlet install and hope the next code update comes soon?!

PS: Shaw is coming friday!


And on second thought.. I wonder if they're willing to wire an ethernet cable instead of coax for the same price :p technically still a "tv outlet install" after this.. haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I highly doubt it, Shaw is a "cable" (RF signal based Coax) company...not a IT based "Cable" (CAT5-6) company.

I think it is wise of them to stick with what they know..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Shaw does not wire Ethernet lines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
That being said, if you had a box of CAT5-6 you could always ask the installer to run it at the same time..
I don't see how that would be an issue..
Just tape it onto the coax and go...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
To be honest I would probably say no. If there was ever a problem with the cat6 I could be held accountable for ruining the wire while I was running it. I am not saying you would say that, but some people would. Also, there is extra time in running and securing 2 wire as opposed to one. We get paid by the piece and not hourly, so we wouldn't be making any money for the extra time it takes. Also, we do not have any wallplates that would work for that cat6 line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
I'm sure they would consider running it for a fee. I used to install big dish satellite systems and, later, small dish systems and I can tell you it's far less work to pull a single coax than it is to pull even just two cables, of any kind.

As you mention, the liability of possibly damaging the less robust Cat5/6 is more than enough reason not to want to have anything to do with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I would suggest that you would probably have a happier customer, it you just did it anyway and explained what your limitations (tie-ing up and no plate ect)

Really it would be no sweat for you, you are putting the coax in anyway..

Just out of curiosity. what would Shaw say if I wanted them to run MY coax..not yours? (for your services of course) (lets say residential only)
Something like this:
http://www.smarthome.com/868241J/2-Cat-5e-2-RG6-Quad-Cable-Jacket-500-Feet-RG6-Coax-Cable/p.aspx
( I realize that that is overkill, but still)

(I take care of a very large Shaw system...we own everything from the fiber node on (node is Shaw owned) ...about 1500 drops and growing.)

Jet, I too have run many miles of cables, and installed many different types of LV systems (CATV. CCTV. SAT. MMDS, Sound, LAN, Secutiry, card access, ect (15 years of it))
The addition of another cable is minimal at best..Liabilty could be explained before starting..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I have seen those wires before, without the fiber. Some new homes use them. The quad shield coax is a bit of a pain to get our connectors onto, but can be done.

Shaw's best practices is to not use any other equipment other than the one that they have tested. This ensures proper compatibility and quality. Shaw can not guarantee that the services will work using wiring or equipment that they have not been able to test. Shaw spends a lot of time and money to ensure the quality of their products. If a customer wants their own wiring placed, they are always able to contact an electrician or other party to run those wires.

This is what I have been told for the last 12 years that I have been doing this job. If corporate has changed their minds on this, that is their prerogative (spelling?), but I have not been told otherwise. :)
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top