Could a network connection work like a phone jack

I have a WDTV and a smart TV. I only have one network connection at
the location. I really don't need another one, or the current one for
that matter. Both are also wireless.

It just made me wonder if the devices could be made with an in/out
Cat5 port. I say that because I would only be using one or the other
at any time anyway.

I do understand that to use both would cut the through put in half,
but that would probably still be better than wireless.

Seymore4Head wrote:
I have a WDTV and a smart TV. I only have one network connection at
the location. I really don't need another one, or the current one for
that matter. Both are also wireless.

It just made me wonder if the devices could be made with an in/out
Cat5 port. I say that because I would only be using one or the other
at any time anyway.

I do understand that to use both would cut the through put in half,
but that would probably still be better than wireless.

You can make network connections directly between devices.
Even Wifi devices support such a configuration (adhoc).

When a router assigns IP addresses with DHCP, it does
it in such a way that the addresses are unique per device.
One device becomes 192.168.0.2, the other 192.168.0.3,
which would be two non-routable local addresses.

If you operate two peer level devices, ones where neither
of them operates a DHCP server, then it is up to the
user to statically define an IP address. And select
values which don't conflict with other IP address
assignments.

Ethernet cables with RJ45 connectors on the end, come
as "straight thru" or "crossover" cables. For direct
computer to computer usage, a crossover cable is used.
This connects TX on one device to RX on the other,
and vice versa.

When Gigabit Ethernet NICs were invented, they were
given MDI/MDIX capability, and those can automatically
determine who has a TX, who has an RX, and do the right
thing on each device. If you have older 10/100BT NICs
(the slower ones), those don't have MDI/MDIX and they
only use pins 1,2,3,6. Those four wires is enough for
two cross-coupled pairs. On the older cables, they might
only have a total of four wires, arranged as two twisted
pairs. Modern cables have all eight wires, arranged as four
pairs. And MDI/MDIX support is a natural part of distinguishing
between four wire and eight wire usage scenarios.

Without MDI/MDIX capable NICs, a person ends up stocking
both straight-thru and crossover type cables, and trying
them until one of them works. I have a crossover cable
here, which has a blue connector on one end and a red
connector on the other end. Which implies crossover.
If the connectors are the same color on either end, the
cable is more likely to be straight thru. With a multimeter,
it is easy to verify the wiring pattern.

So, to connect your WDTV to your Smart TV *directly* you'd need:

1) A crossover cable, if they're not MDI/MDIX capable.
Either type of cable, if they support MDI/MDIX.
2) An accessible user interface to allow device programming.
This is easy on the Smart TV, as it has a nice glass screen
to show the current IP address. The WDTV might need some other
means of being programmed.
3) Program static IP addresses in each unit.
4) Connect the units together.

Windows devices can use APIPA addresses, which attempt
to solve the problem without step (2). I don't know the
details of APIPA on embedded devices like your WDTV and
your Smart TV. Maybe they'll "just work" when connected
together.

I would test with the crossover cable first, as it's more
likely to work in a "direct connect" scenario. But, like when dealing
with serial ports, you keep all polarities of cables available,
and you can usually cobble something together that works.

In some cases, without careful shopping, it can cost as much
for cabling, as for electronics. I could buy a four port wired
router for $40, and the four cables I needed to go with it,
cost $10 each. So the cables cost as much as the (powered
by wall adapter) router box. One advantage I suppose, of wireless
devices, is no pricey cables are needed. I bought my cables
around 9PM at night, from a local retailer, so there was
no opportunity to acquire a cheaper cable. At $10 each, it
was "take it or leave it" time. At least they weren't Monster
branded, or "gold plated". Just ordinary cables.

With wireless, there is "adhoc mode", but you also have
the daunting task of getting them to work with one another.

One benefit of the wired setup, versus the wireless, is
the wired setup is more secure to abuse from a neighbor or
someone sitting on the street with a Wifi receiver. The physical
isolation of wired connections, is one less thing to worry about.

*******

I'm sure you'll figure something out. One option is going to
require more "manual reading" than the other. And one option
is going to cost more than the other, to set up.

Paul

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 03:36:05 -0400, Paul wrote:

Seymore4Head wrote:
I have a WDTV and a smart TV. I only have one network connection at
the location. I really don't need another one, or the current one for
that matter. Both are also wireless.

It just made me wonder if the devices could be made with an in/out
Cat5 port. I say that because I would only be using one or the other
at any time anyway.

I do understand that to use both would cut the through put in half,
but that would probably still be better than wireless.

You can make network connections directly between devices.
Even Wifi devices support such a configuration (adhoc).

When a router assigns IP addresses with DHCP, it does
it in such a way that the addresses are unique per device.
One device becomes 192.168.0.2, the other 192.168.0.3,
which would be two non-routable local addresses.

If you operate two peer level devices, ones where neither
of them operates a DHCP server, then it is up to the
user to statically define an IP address. And select
values which don't conflict with other IP address
assignments.

Ethernet cables with RJ45 connectors on the end, come
as "straight thru" or "crossover" cables. For direct
computer to computer usage, a crossover cable is used.
This connects TX on one device to RX on the other,
and vice versa.

When Gigabit Ethernet NICs were invented, they were
given MDI/MDIX capability, and those can automatically
determine who has a TX, who has an RX, and do the right
thing on each device. If you have older 10/100BT NICs
(the slower ones), those don't have MDI/MDIX and they
only use pins 1,2,3,6. Those four wires is enough for
two cross-coupled pairs. On the older cables, they might
only have a total of four wires, arranged as two twisted
pairs. Modern cables have all eight wires, arranged as four
pairs. And MDI/MDIX support is a natural part of distinguishing
between four wire and eight wire usage scenarios.

Without MDI/MDIX capable NICs, a person ends up stocking
both straight-thru and crossover type cables, and trying
them until one of them works. I have a crossover cable
here, which has a blue connector on one end and a red
connector on the other end. Which implies crossover.
If the connectors are the same color on either end, the
cable is more likely to be straight thru. With a multimeter,
it is easy to verify the wiring pattern.

So, to connect your WDTV to your Smart TV *directly* you'd need:

1) A crossover cable, if they're not MDI/MDIX capable.
Either type of cable, if they support MDI/MDIX.
2) An accessible user interface to allow device programming.
This is easy on the Smart TV, as it has a nice glass screen
to show the current IP address. The WDTV might need some other
means of being programmed.
3) Program static IP addresses in each unit.
4) Connect the units together.

Windows devices can use APIPA addresses, which attempt
to solve the problem without step (2). I don't know the
details of APIPA on embedded devices like your WDTV and
your Smart TV. Maybe they'll "just work" when connected
together.

I would test with the crossover cable first, as it's more
likely to work in a "direct connect" scenario. But, like when dealing
with serial ports, you keep all polarities of cables available,
and you can usually cobble something together that works.

In some cases, without careful shopping, it can cost as much
for cabling, as for electronics. I could buy a four port wired
router for $40, and the four cables I needed to go with it,
cost $10 each. So the cables cost as much as the (powered
by wall adapter) router box. One advantage I suppose, of wireless
devices, is no pricey cables are needed. I bought my cables
around 9PM at night, from a local retailer, so there was
no opportunity to acquire a cheaper cable. At $10 each, it
was "take it or leave it" time. At least they weren't Monster
branded, or "gold plated". Just ordinary cables.

With wireless, there is "adhoc mode", but you also have
the daunting task of getting them to work with one another.

One benefit of the wired setup, versus the wireless, is
the wired setup is more secure to abuse from a neighbor or
someone sitting on the street with a Wifi receiver. The physical
isolation of wired connections, is one less thing to worry about.

*******

I'm sure you'll figure something out. One option is going to
require more "manual reading" than the other. And one option
is going to cost more than the other, to set up.

Paul

Thanks

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

(And I would hope it would work without having to use a crossover.)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:36:42 -0400, Seymore4Head wrote:

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

It sounds as if you need a switch. Something like the below. You plug the
modem into one port and your other devices into the others.

http://www.cclonline.com/product/990...eries/NET0748/

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:26:26 +0100 (BST), "Rodney Pont"
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:36:42 -0400, Seymore4Head wrote:

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

It sounds as if you need a switch. Something like the below. You plug the
modem into one port and your other devices into the others.

http://www.cclonline.com/product/990...eries/NET0748/

I actually have a spare one of those. I never use the Internet part
of the TV any way. It is just I can see a day where every TV location
could use more than one Internet connection.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:29:08 -0400, Seymore4Head wrote:

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

It sounds as if you need a switch. Something like the below. You plug the
modem into one port and your other devices into the others.

http://www.cclonline.com/product/990...eries/NET0748/

I actually have a spare one of those. I never use the Internet part
of the TV any way. It is just I can see a day where every TV location
could use more than one Internet connection.

Does that do the sort of thing you are asking about or is it something
else you want to know? The gig switches sort out there own in/out
settings and do both ways simultaneously (full duplex), providing you
have one at each end.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:08:19 +0100 (BST), Rodney Pont wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:29:08 -0400, Seymore4Head wrote:

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

It sounds as if you need a switch. Something like the below. You plug the
modem into one port and your other devices into the others.

http://www.cclonline.com/product/990...eries/NET0748/

I actually have a spare one of those. I never use the Internet part
of the TV any way. It is just I can see a day where every TV location
could use more than one Internet connection.

Does that do the sort of thing you are asking about or is it something
else you want to know? The gig switches sort out there own in/out
settings and do both ways simultaneously (full duplex), providing you
have one at each end.

Should have said I meant a gigabit port at each end, not a gigabit
switch at each end.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:12:52 -0400, Seymore4Head
wrote:

I have a WDTV and a smart TV. I only have one network connection at
the location. I really don't need another one, or the current one for
that matter. Both are also wireless.

It just made me wonder if the devices could be made with an in/out
Cat5 port. I say that because I would only be using one or the other
at any time anyway.

I do understand that to use both would cut the through put in half,
but that would probably still be better than wireless.

Well, if you really want to you can wire something like this. The
error rate on the link will be abysmal but I have seen it function.
(Some electrician didn't understand how you're supposed to it and
simply spliced like you would an electric wire. We thought the errors
on the wire were due to interference and it went undetected for
years.)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:36:42 -0400, Seymore4Head
wrote:

It was just a general question posted in hopes that someone that
actually worked in the field might think it was a good idea. I rarely
(never) use the smart TV Internet anyway. If I did I could just
switch the cable. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice if
electronics came with an in/out port to enable connection sharing.

While sharing a connection might not be the most efficient for
computers, it may be adequate for TVs and such.

(And I would hope it would work without having to use a crossover.)

I couldn't imagine streaming working properly over such a setup.

If you want to make a junction like that you get the tool for the
job--an ethernet switch. Note that these are powered devices that
retransmit the signal, not merely splitters. They act as the traffic
cops of the internet ensuring packets go where they are supposed to
rather than the collisions that would abound if the wires were simply
connected together. Connect the wires together and if two systems try
to talk at once both packets are simply lost. Eventually the
computers involved realize the packet wasn't delivered but that takes
time.