HomePNA vs CAT-5

U-Bolt · ‎06-19-2009

I had heard about HomePNA and thought I would research the capabilities of it. I found that with HomePNA (coaxial or phone cabling) the following services can coexist - Phone, Fax, DSL, Satellite and off-the-air TV signals since the HomePNA operates at different frequencies on the same coax or phone wires.

Now here is thre real kicker - HomePNA 3.0 can operate up to 240Mbit/s this is much faster than 10/100 Mbit that the 2wire remote gateway switch offers. HomePNA also offers Quality of Server (QOS) that eliminates collisions....QOS is not something normally provided for internal cat-5 ethernet networks but usually found in a gateway router to the internet. A person that has their uverse receivers hooked up via a cat-5 network could see collisions and degradiation of service if something on the network takes up excessive bandwidth.

A total of 64 devices can be supported at a maximum distance of 300 m (1,000 feet) and uses standard ethernet drivers.

NOTE:

HomePNA 3.0 support a maximum of 240bit/s while 3.1 supports 320Mbit/s. The 2wire remote gateway I believe only supports HomePNA 3.0 from the little specifications I have found on the 2wire website. There could be a firmware upgrade to 3.1 in the future.

People have claimed a video quality over cat-5 which maybe true but after reading the specification on HomePNA I have decied to leave my television boxes using coaxial. The higher throughput of 240Mbit/s and QOS that is offered which isn't available on an internal ethernet network and I can maximize my bandwidth of my internal network for other applications.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

HPNA only has to do w/coax on Uverse, your theoretical postulations aside, it works fine if installed perfectly, no better or worse than cat5e installs. The problems come in when some installers take shortcuts and don't change to compression fittings, leave a little piece of shield wire touching the center conductor, don't change out bad or RG-59 cable, Uverse needs RG-6, those kind of things cause HPNA problems. Add to that ATT was installing the wrong type of splitter causing freezing and pixelation, but refused to go wholsale to replace all, just replace them on complaint calls. I'm a firm supporter of cat5e for uverse, it's simply plug and play and works great for data; which is what Uverse really is.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 06-23-2009 12:47 PM

U-Bolt · ‎06-19-2009

You just hear people clamoring to hook there receivers up to cat-5 and I am just pointing out the technical aspects of it and the benefits of keeping coxial. All my Coxial wiring is top notch and that isn't a problem - sloppy installations versus technical specifications are unrelated. A person can have sloppy coxial installs and sloppy cat-5 installs...

If you have good video quality with coxial then you are not going to gain anything with cat-5. In fact it will degenerate your home ethernet network. HomePNA has built in QOS insuring there are no collisions! Based upon technical information I am going stay with Coxial and keeping my CAT-5 network bandwidth free for other services that I may want to run over it...

Keeping coaxial and cat-5 basically allows you to have two seprate network in your house that can see each other.

Message Edited by U-Bolt on 06-23-2009 12:09 PM

scomella · ‎11-21-2006

U-Bolt wrote:

Now here is thre real kicker - HomePNA 3.0 can operate up to 240Mbit/s this is much faster than 10/100 Mbit that the 2wire remote gateway switch offers. HomePNA also offers Quality of Server (QOS) that eliminates collisions....QOS is not something normally provided for internal cat-5 ethernet networks but usually found in a gateway router to the internet. A person that has their uverse receivers hooked up via a cat-5 network could see collisions and degradiation of service if something on the network takes up excessive bandwidth.

U-Bolt,

I agree with you that if installed correctly one should not see differences in video quality if the connections between the RG and DVR / STB are co-ax or Ethernet cabling (assuming both are installed / terminated correctly).

But I respectully disagree with you on your speed comparison of the HPNA versus Ethernet network from the 2-Wire RG. Each port on the RG supports 10/100 Mbps connection rate. Each port also supports full-duplex operation (packet collisions do not occur when operating in full-duplex mode). Assuming both ends of the Ethernet connection support full-duplex operation there should be no collisions. Not many devices these days are limited to only 10Mbps, so the connection rate per port will be 100Mbps the majority of the time.

Disregarding packet overhead which consumes bandwidth (which will also be present on the HPNA network) theoretically if one had all four Ethernet ports connected at 100Mbps full-duplex each, then the switch on the RG could simultaneously support 400Mbps downstream and 400Mbps upstream traffic on its Ethernet interfaces. In reality, whatever processor is used on the RG will probably be the bandwidth limiter. But that bandwidth limitation will probably be similar for either the Ethernet or HPNA networks.

I'm not familiar with the HPNA 3.0 specification, but I'm pretty sure that the maximum rate of 240Mbps you mentioned is for ideal conditions. Much like VDSL the longer the distance, the more noise on the line, etc. will impact the connection rate. From what I have seen on this forum, people's HPNA networks are achieving a 112Mbps connection rate. With Ethernet, the connection speeds will not vary (Depending on what both sides negotiate to you get the 10Mbps or 100Mbps connection rate, or you don't connect at all. There is no in-between connection rate).

- Steve

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

Okay u-bolt, you get a sloppy coax install and you'll be here moaning about all your pixelation and freezing, don't know what your so revved up about HPNA for, but if you'd look at my 1st post neither can be better than the other especially if the coax install is perfect. Believe when I say in 11 months here and uverseusers.com and dslreports.com, I have not read one case of a 'sloppy' cat5e install that didn't work properly.

Having cat5e does not degrade your home network if you're smart and keep viedo and internet separate. But reports of using 802.1p compliant switchs, they can run together w/no problems. You would be wise to do a little more research here as you could learn this is the actuallity of how Uverse does work.

Edit: Why when users are having problems w/a coax NID to RG run and it's replaced by a cat5e run, problem solved?

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 06-23-2009 03:38 PM

U-Bolt · ‎06-19-2009

I am not having problems with my coxial - thus I see no benefit in switching and I see the QOS feature a benefit for staying with coxial (HomePNA). If you are having problems with your coxial then yeah try cat-5 that is if you don't want to run new coxial...

Stevec, If you have multiple cables running to your rooms then your statement is true about the 100Mbits per connection but if you are using addtional switches in the rooms where you need to hook up additional equipment then all that data gets piled on to the "backbone" which only runs at 100Mbits - In my house I only ran 1-CAT5 to each room...

Message Edited by U-Bolt on 06-23-2009 03:36 PM

ScottMac · ‎08-16-2008

U-Bolt wrote:
I am not having problems with my coxial - thus I see no benefit in switching and I see the QOS feature a benefit for staying with coxial (HomePNA). If you are having problems with your coxial then yeah try cat-5 that is if you don't want to run new coxial...

Stevec, If you have multiple cables running to your rooms then your statement is true about the 100Mbits per connection but if you are using addtional switches in the rooms where you need to hook up additional equipment then all that data gets piled on to the "backbone" which only runs at 100Mbits - In my house I only ran 1-CAT5 to each room...
Message Edited by U-Bolt on 06-23-2009 03:36 PM

QOS is not an inate feature of either HPNA or Ethernet.

If everything is marked, then nothing is marked ... everything operates at the same level. The application must support QOS/COS marking, every component in the path must support it (or at least respect it). Anything going to the Internet is a crap-shoot, because "The Internet" doesn't support QOS in any form or fashion.

100Meg Ethernet is also full duplex (using two pair/four conductors), GigE is as well, using all four pair/eight conductors concurrently in both directions.

There really isn't anything tha HPNA has that is not also available, if not inherently implemented, on Fast or Gig Ethernet.

And, FWIW, Cat5e is the official media-of-choice for U-Verse. Coax ( preferably RG6 tri or quad, in good condition, properly terminated) is an acceptable alternative.

Whatever floats yer boat...

Message Edited by ScottMac on 06-23-2009 08:39 PM

I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s positions, strategies or opinions.

PowerCycle · ‎03-27-2009

Both type of connections will work great if installed properly... One cannot really notice a difference between coaxial and cat5. But mostly coaxial is the one having most problem. It actually depends on your home networking setup. If you want an easy install setup, go for cat5. Coax is good, but its something the installers could easily screw up with. Not really a complicated setup with coax, but there are alot of things you need to consider so that it can run properly (splitter, fittings,etc. ) compare to cat5, just like what Chris said that its "Plug and play" so it should be easy...

But in terms of what type of connection has superior performance, there is really not much difference. But you will find that cat5 connection will give you less pain in the A and a much organized networking if you know how to connect them properly.

IMHO

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

U-Bolt wrote:

Now here is thre real kicker - HomePNA 3.0 can operate up to 240Mbit/s this is much faster than 10/100 Mbit that the 2wire remote gateway switch offers. HomePNA also offers Quality of Server (QOS) that eliminates collisions....QOS is not something normally provided for internal cat-5 ethernet networks but usually found in a gateway router to the internet. A person that has their uverse receivers hooked up via a cat-5 network could see collisions and degradiation of service if something on the network takes up excessive bandwidth.

1. HPNA's 240 Mbps (or 320 Mbps) is shared between all devices on the coax cable, because coax is a bus topology. Fast Ethernet is a star topology, and if switches are used (I don't believe hubs/repeaters are even available for sale anymore) then each port has a dedicated 100 Mbps.

2. A single U-Verse HD channel uses 6 Mbps. The maximum total traffic that the DVR (highest utilization device) can ever handle is 2HD/2SD recording, and 3HD/1SD playing back using THDVR, which totals to 16 Mbps incoming, and 20 Mbps outgoing. These values don't even approach the maximum bitrate that either type of media could handle.

3. As ScottMac pointed out, QOS is not a function of the network media (layer 1), QOS is implemented at layer 2 or higher by the devices/applications. HPNA 3.x supports a layer 2 QOS mechanism but the RG (or other device) has to use that. The RG does, in fact, elevate TV IP packets to a higher QOS on HPNA. Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet also support a layer 2 QOS mechanism (802.1p), and the RG will indeed mark TV packets with a higher priority. You must have 802.1p-compliant switches throughout your network to use this QOS tagging.

4. On a full-duplex Fast Ethernet network, collisions do not occur, by definition.

5. Fast/Gigabit Ethernet switches offer other networking technologies that can be useful that HPNA cannot do, such as traffic separation/aggregation via VLANs, which is how I have designed my home network (see description and diagram).

U-Bolt · ‎06-19-2009

mibrnsurg wrote:
HPNA only has to do w/coax on Uverse, your theoretical postulations aside, it works fine if installed perfectly, ....

I would like to correct the above statement - The 2Wire Gateway does indeed work on RJ-11. In the 2-Wire configurations click on HPNA (Configure the HomePNA Network). You can choose COAX OR RJ11. This is an either or situation...

Best Regards,

U-Bolt

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

Sorry u-bolt, the choice may be there, but it's only used for coax on Uverse. Cat5e/ethernet cable only runs off the 4 'local ethernet' ports.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

mibrnsurg wrote:
Sorry u-bolt, the choice may be there, but it's only used for coax on Uverse. Cat5e/ethernet cable only runs off the 4 'local ethernet' ports.

I seem to remember that KoolKid did some experimentation way back when, and I believe he did get HPNA to work over RJ-11. He was using a 3rd-party RJ-11 HPNA to Ethernet converter on the other end (which would be required to run an STB, since the STBs don't have an RJ-11 interface) and had a computer that was getting Internet access over that connection.

That was a few firmware revisions ago, so I don't know if that would still work or not.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

Was trying to infer to u-bolt that HPNA is only on coax at installation, someone like KK would fool around just to see if it would work.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

randyl · ‎10-25-2007

fwiw (someone who needs it and does not want to pull cat5 to an upstairs room etc)

randy

spd2demun · ‎07-28-2007

Where do you find these cool toys! Couldn't I have used that when my wireless was on the fritz?

RBBrittain · ‎01-14-2006

randyl wrote:
fwiw (someone who needs it and does not want to pull cat5 to an upstairs room etc)

That's MoCA, which IIRC some of the earliest U-verse coax installs used before switching to HomePNA. I wouldn't use it unless you're otherwise all-Cat 5 or you use "home run" coax from NID to RG; more than likely MoCA & HomePNA won't get along on the same coax line.

As far as the coax vs. RJ11 options in the RG, those might be intended for use with coax-to-RJ11 baluns; I saw one in a U-verse STB manual as the only way to connect a STB via RJ11. However, considering the limited bandwidth of straight phone wire, that probably wouldn't be acceptable without Cat 5 wire, in which case you might as well use Ethernet for everything but the "home run" line.

(FWIW, my older-apartment install is 100% Cat 5--RJ11 from wall jack to RG, then Ethernet to the nearby TV & router. However, an older friend of mine who got U-verse before I did has a coax install, with Ethernet only to the PC & STB near the RG.)

spd2demun · ‎07-28-2007

I heard KK mention it in the past, but seems like a viable option for those who don't want to (can't/aren't able) pull Ethernet.

Ender519 · ‎11-30-2008

Chiming in as a U-Verse user since December. The coax works perfectly for me, no issues whatsoever. As everyone has said multiple times, it's all about the installer making sure the fittings are brand new and tightly connected, and that the quality of your coax is sufficient.. most recent homes are fine but if you're looking at 20 year old coax, not so much.. In fact, properly installed I'd probably put it out there that coax is BETTER in some cases than Ethernet for the fact that the wiring is far more shielded than Cat5.

Coax carries such a negative connotation with anything video related because it immediately brings to mind the sometimes poor video quality of years past through devices that plugged into the coax.. and I myself was somewhat hesitant about homepna because networking (and IT security) is my trade, it's what I do.. it just "feels" like ethernet is more modern or that somehow quality would be better to me at first thought, but this was not the case at all.

HomePNA has done great for me and I even tested with coax to see if there was a difference, and there was none.. I watch HD in our upstairs bedroom over HomePNA with no hiccups and so long as the installer does a good job you should have nothing to fear.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

That's the big rub ender519, it has to be installed perfectly and even then, things like ATT using the wrong splitter come up, coax does loosen at connections w/age and installers cut corners and don't change connectors or bad runs of cable (leave rg-59 stead of replacing w/rg-6). The sheilding capability of coax isn't needed very much except in rare cases, surprisingly the twist in cat5e provides shielding of it's own. I'm all cat5e and ethernet patch cable and couldn't be happier w/my service.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more