http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/06/25/netgear-moca-coax-ethernet-adapter-review

Home networking has evolved from the wireless domain of data networking to an entirely new set of requirements for piping entertainment around the house.  These new demands are what is fueling the need for alternatives to wireless technologies primarily MoCA, HomePNA, HomePlug and Homegrid.

The meteoric rise in bandwidth consumption in consumer homes due to the proliferation of HDTV channels and online video is another reason home networking is rapidly becoming seen as a necessity. To deliver a positive HDTV experience to the end user, service providers must provide QoS guarantees and effective bandwidth management to maintain reliability for their services. Ultimately, home networking will allow content captured on a set-top box or other home electronic device to be played on any compatible device connected to the home network.

Each of these technologies have their pros and cons, so is there going to be one clear winner or a fragmented market?  Will there be multiple networks operating simultaneously in the home?  One thing seems to be certain, the applications for playing and receiving digital media on the PC, HDTV, and Wireless Device will continue to multiply.

In other words, do people want a network? Or do they just want connectivity? Do consumers recognize the inherent advantages of a network, which is presumably greater efficiencies and interoperability, with a plethora of upgrade choices? Or are they tired of yet another network and think of it in terms of a corresponding increase in purchase of equipment and set up?

Do consumers think in terms of a network? Or do they just want their stuff to work together without hassle or time consuming learning curves? 

What do you think?

What do they need to know that we as an industry are not telling them?

The PHY rate is essentially the physical layer and represents a theoretical performance rate of data transfer. The MAC rate, media access control, is essentially the rate of transfer that is most common. The PHY and MAC rates are rarely if ever the same. But the former is higher and theoretically more impressive. After all, more must be better, right?

The point of this pedestrian description is to point out that these discrepancies in performance are often misunderstood by most consumers adding to confusion, frustration and returns. While the PHY rate is considered better because it is a higher or bigger number, it is the MAC rate that is of importance because that is what the customer experiences.

In lay terms, the PHY and MAC rate is the difference between what is promised and what is received. MoCA only quotes the MAC rate or the actual throughput–what you get. Most other standard consortiums quote the PHY rate, or theoretical data rate–what is possible but rarely probable. The package screams the product inside is big and fast, but in reality it is much slower when taken out of the box and put to work. It does not mean it is not fast. It just means it is not as fast as you would otherwise believe.

One example is the wireless data rate. Networking products based on IEEE 802.11 g., for instance, often quote a PHY rate of 54 Mpbs. How many people actually get that? The MAC rate, or real data rate, is about a fourth of that. But frankly, who cares about the real data rate? What is important is if you get Internet access from any room in the house, and did your email get to its intended destination in real time? If so, then the product did its job.

While the consumer does not care about PHYs or MACs, or theoretical vs. actual data rates, he and she do care about what is promised vs. what they get. For data and voice, lower data transfer rates are perfectly adequate. In fact, more would just be more, and more is not always better. The exceptions would be ice cream, chocolate and beer.

High definition video, however, is a completely different animal and requires high transfer rates that are reliable. Not one. Not the other. Both.

Hi def programming and content including video and gaming for instance, require very high data rates that are also reliable. The rate you get all the time. Not some of the time. Not even most of the time. All the time.

When evaluating networking equipment for your home, look closely at the performance claims and ask for proof of the real data rate that you can expect.

Insist on Truth in Networking.

Comments?

What are your experiences? What products do you like and what products do you not like? Anyone lied to you recently? Any marketing hype that did not live up to its promise? Any let downs? Any pleasant surprises? Anyone who was helpful? Helpful hints, what to avoid, what to ask?

All we ask is that you not use profanity. And if you slam a product (we do not mind if you vett or kvetch), it must be quantitative in its criticism. In other words, you must be able to prove it.

Personal useage stories are of particular interest, by the way.

Also, while we want to hear about experiences that may have been less than satisfactory, we are also interested in success stories as well. Want to keep it balanced. Topics of interest that you feel are underreported in the main stream media but cry for attention, are strongly encouraged for discussion, too.

Also, everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you disagree, fine. State why rationally and logically, but no slander and no disparaging comments that are personal. We really want to advance the state of networking by telling the truth.

Insist on Truth in Networking.

I will go first.