Related
Can I control Chromecast with my phone without a wifi router? I would like to be able to use just a tv, chromecast, and my phone to stream from my phone. Does anyone know if this is possible or if it will be? I tried downloading a rented movie from Google movie and turn the router off at my house. I tried to stream, but it failed for two reasons. Google movies won't let you stream downloaded movies and Chromecast won't work without my router on. Did I do something wrong here or am I missing something? I would prefer to be able to rely on my phone's data and downloaded files. Doesn't anyone think this would be possible with Chromecast? I guess I'm ultimately looking for portability without the internet.
choosetoride said:
Can I control Chromcast with my phone without a wifi router? I would like to be able to use just a tv, chromecast, and my phone to stream from my phone. Does anyone know if this is possible or if it will be? I tried downloading a rented movie from Google movie and turn the router off at my house. I tried to stream, but it failed for two reasons. Google movies won't let you stream downloaded movies and Chromecast won't work without my router on. Did I do something wrong here or am I missing something? I would prefer to be able to rely on my phone's data and downloaded files. Doesn't anyone think this would be possible with Chromecast? I guess I'm ultimately looking for portability without the internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure your phone/tablet/laptop need to be on the same subnet as the device so it can be found to cast to, hence the need to have everything on the same wifi router.
I think that you can tether it to your phone. You select which wi-fi network the Chromecast joins using the Chromecast app, so no reason that you couldn't enter your phone's wi-fi network.
I think the salient point from the above answers is that Chromecast seems to need an Internet connection for some things (like youtube). For Web pages the Windows chrome browser sends the content to Chromecast but other times (YouTube) it's pulling content itself from the Internet.
Once Koush's app is out hopefully you'll be able to stream more content right to your phone, so a peer to peer network might work better
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Jason_V said:
I think that you can tether it to your phone. You select which wi-fi network the Chromecast joins using the Chromecast app, so no reason that you couldn't enter your phone's wi-fi network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could, but remember that Casting from your phone, computer, etc removes that device from being in the middle, and the Chromecast does the heavy lifting of grabbing the requested stream from the internet and playing it on-screen. Your phone's WiFi may be sufficient, but remember you're going to be pulling HD data over the cellular connection, and that'll probably be jerky and buffer a lot. It was neat to cast a netflix item from my phone and turn my phone OFF while it was still playing (and didn't skip a beat) to verify it wasn't using my phone for anything.
FractalSphere said:
You could, but remember that Casting from your phone, computer, etc removes that device from being in the middle, and the Chromecast does the heavy lifting of grabbing the requested stream from the internet and playing it on-screen. Your phone's WiFi may be sufficient, but remember you're going to be pulling HD data over the cellular connection, and that'll probably be jerky and buffer a lot. It was neat to cast a netflix item from my phone and turn my phone OFF while it was still playing (and didn't skip a beat) to verify it wasn't using my phone for anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. The handoff is amazing. I just would like the option for when I'm somewhere with no internet. In my opinion, this could be a huge deal breaker for a lot of people. Why make it so small, if it's not meant to be taken everywhere? But, who knows. From my perspective, it goes right back to the DRM issue with Xbox. I buy or rent all of the media I watch, but forcing me to be online anytime I want to view it is just controlling. It removes value.
choosetoride said:
Good point. The handoff is amazing. I just would like the option for when I'm somewhere with no internet. In my opinion, this could be a huge deal breaker for a lot of people. Why make it so small, if it's not meant to be taken everywhere? But, who knows. From my perspective, it goes right back to the DRM issue with Xbox. I buy or rent all of the media I watch, but forcing me to be online anytime I want to view it is just controlling. It removes value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would tether or use one of those mobile hotspots (I don't have one, but might if I traveled extensively) and stream that way at a hotel or even someone elses house.
Ohh, which begs the question, can the Chromecast store more than one Wifi configuration? I don't think the software can do that at the moment.. Would be VERY convenient to travel to known locations back and forth.
As for direct streaming of local video, i was able to stream MP4 files no problem using a Chrome browser tab. The computer doing the rendering needs to be a higher-end PC, though - right now I have a older 'media PC' set up that my Xbox plays DLNA from and it's just a glorified storage device, it didn't want to render those videos well at all. So if you have a decent laptop, and get Connectify (free PC software that makes your laptop a hotspot) you can stream to the Chromecast directly while out at a remote location.
I believe the ad-hoc wireless functionality was only meant to facilitate initial setup, not to be a content streaming solution.
Plus, I doubt your phone would be able to handle the computing stress required to cast content directly to the Chromecast.
Roberek said:
I believe the ad-hoc wireless functionality was only meant to facilitate initial setup, not to be a content streaming solution.
Plus, I doubt your phone would be able to handle the computing stress required to cast content directly to the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I stream HD Netflix from my phone's hotspot, perfect. I play my xbox online with parties using my hotpsot...perfect.
My down speeds are better than most peoples ISP down speeds so I don't see this being an issue.
The Xbox Smartglass app works from my phone while my phone is giving my Xbox internet so I don't see why the Chromecast wouldn't be able to work either.
I emailed Google about this because I honestly don't see the problem.
iTreezy said:
I stream HD Netflix from my phone's hotspot, perfect. I play my xbox online with parties using my hotpsot...perfect.
My down speeds are better than most peoples ISP down speeds so I don't see this being an issue.
The Xbox Smartglass app works from my phone while my phone is giving my Xbox internet so I don't see why the Chromecast wouldn't be able to work either.
I emailed Google about this because I honestly don't see the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
let me know if you get a reply because i want to do the same thing but apparently this is the reason why it doesn't work
http://forums.androidcentral.com/go...android-phone-hotspot-ap-isolation-issue.html
seems like if you can disable ap isolation then it would fix it but i'm not sure how you'd do that
Jason_V said:
I think that you can tether it to your phone. You select which wi-fi network the Chromecast joins using the Chromecast app, so no reason that you couldn't enter your phone's wi-fi network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried doing this on my Galaxy Note II (Sprint) using WiFi tether. I was able to get it an IP and connect to the network, but it wasn't pushing the DNS info (ie wasn't getting an internet connection). Unfortunately, WiFi tether can be limited in the it's settings and CC has only a few.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen, you are unable to store multiple networks on the CC. I don't believe it was designed for that much portability. I happen to have a laptop with me and was able to do the setup. Since I wasn't able to get an internet connect, I wasn't able to test if I could cast from the GN2. My expectation is most likely not. But I had a tablet with me too, and would have tested it with that.
As for how it would preform, I assume for Netflix and application with CC extension built in, no problem. Trying to cast a Chrome tab, that could be iffy since it would depend on well WiFi tether can handle the that much traffic and the PC.
I haven't fiddled with it since then. But it's definitely possible with some tweaks.
colonelcack said:
let me know if you get a reply because i want to do the same thing but apparently this is the reason why it doesn't work
http://forums.androidcentral.com/go...android-phone-hotspot-ap-isolation-issue.html
seems like if you can disable ap isolation then it would fix it but i'm not sure how you'd do that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think there is a way to disable AP isolation. I'm no network wiz or anything but I rally think it would be an easy update on their side to grant access to using our phones hot spot.
I also noticed that the Chromecast itself generates its own hotspot...I'm assuming to let other devices connect to it and cast to it.
I'm not mad that it doesn't work ($35 isn't a wallet breaker) but I am mad that I jumped the gun and used my 3 months free promo for Netflix =(
Well, here it is guys
Hello Troy,
Thank you for contacting Google Play! It was a pleasure getting to speak with you today. Unfortunately you will need an ISP to hook up your chromecast it will not work off of a hotspot connection.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reply directly to this email. Also, you can visit our help center at:
https://support.google.com/chromecast/
Regards,
Tracy
The Google Play Support Team!
On 08/10/13 00:10:27 ********** wrote:
first_name_req: Troy
last_name_req: Wisniewski
email_req: **********
Chromekey_serial:
description_req: I don't have an ISP at my residence, I use my Galaxy Nexus
hotspot for everything which always works out well. I was hoping that the
Chromecast would work connected to my hotpot but it seems to have issues.
People have stated that it won't work because your phone has to be
connected to wifi as well but my rebuttal to this is that
Microsoft's "SmartGlass" app is used to control my Xbox, through wifi. I
use my hotspot to give internet access to my Xbox and my phone can control
it even though it is technically not on a wifi network, instead it is
providing the wifi. To me it seems this is the same concept and should work
with a bit of back end support on your end. I would appreciate an email
back stating whether this is going to be possible or not. If it isn't
possible I understand. For $35 ($15 with the Netflix promo) it's not
exactly killing me. The reason I don't have an ISP is because I would
rather not be raped (for lack of better words)
P.S. Google Fiber Metro Detroit please
static_subject_line: Chromecast technical question
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess the the next step is for everyone to quote this and spread the word throughout the other posts here at XDA and any other forums related to this topic.
iTreezy said:
I guess the the next step is for everyone to quote this and spread the word throughout the other posts here at XDA and any other forums related to this topic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bull****. they're just too lazy to do it. there has to be some hotspot app that has this feature or some kind of workaround that will be figured out eventually...this was the whole reason i bought the device, this would be the ultimate portable media center. i bet that kouch guy could do it...
colonelcack said:
bull****. they're just too lazy to do it. there has to be some hotspot app that has this feature or some kind of workaround that will be figured out eventually...this was the whole reason i bought the device, this would be the ultimate portable media center. i bet that kouch guy could do it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Listen.. I'm with you man. I meant spread the official word of google so we can move on to focusing on developers trying to help us out
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
iTreezy said:
Listen.. I'm with you man. I meant spread the official word of google so we can move on to focusing on developers trying to help us out
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol i know man i wasn't saying bull**** to you just in general. i already linked to this to the other post on androidcentral....hopefully this helps spread the word.
Kinda late to the party here, but just FYI I have my CC tethered to my Sprint SGS4 using the native hotspot app. Did the set up using my N10, using the chromecast app.
Bump - Any new developments?
So, Ive been scouring the internet looking for some sort of simple, portable, wireless method to stream content from my Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 to a TV... with the most obvious thought of HDMI adapters and dongles. Obviously one of the leading search results and hype is "Chromecast" which led me here. I was hoping I could confirm the following and see if any progress has been made:
1. Can the Chromecast be used to stream content on a mobile device? Or is it still based strictly on app based media?
2. I doubt much progress has been made in this area, so I really doubt "screencasting" from a mobile device (tablet/phone) is possible, especially without internet connection.
3. Can Chromecast be supported by a portable wifi hotspot yet? or is it still strictly dependent on a ISP to router WiFi connection?
4. If Chromecast doesn't do it, then has any one found any devices that allows you to stream your tablet/phone to a tv wirelessly the same way that you can do if you have the MHL to HDMI cables?
varxtis said:
So, Ive been scouring the internet looking for some sort of simple, portable, wireless method to stream content from my Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 to a TV... with the most obvious thought of HDMI adapters and dongles. Obviously one of the leading search results and hype is "Chromecast" which led me here. I was hoping I could confirm the following and see if any progress has been made:
1. Can the Chromecast be used to stream content on a mobile device? Or is it still based strictly on app based media?
2. I doubt much progress has been made in this area, so I really doubt "screencasting" from a mobile device (tablet/phone) is possible, especially without internet connection.
3. Can Chromecast be supported by a portable wifi hotspot yet? or is it still strictly dependent on a ISP to router WiFi connection?
4. If Chromecast doesn't do it, then has any one found any devices that allows you to stream your tablet/phone to a tv wirelessly the same way that you can do if you have the MHL to HDMI cables?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the Stickies first.
3. As long as your hotspot does not isolates clients or the AP itself, does not block or mangle multicast, and has sufficient bitrate to get the Internet-based media you want, it should work.
4. Wireless HDMI transmitter/receiver, but those cost in the $150+ range for good reason - latency is the biggest enemy. That's why applying the same mechanism that desktop Chrome tab casting won't work. It'll overload the CPU of the phone/tablet with compression and it will still have lag.
The main thing that I was hoping to do with Chromecast was to use it in hotels while travelling. From what I'm reading, there are 2 major problems that would make this not a good option for hotels:
1. Sounds like there's not a way currently to accommodate wi-fi hotspots that require a web page login. This is the situation you find in most hotels.
2. The DNS is hard-coded to Google's DNS servers. This means that if you're travelling away from your home country and you need to use DNS proxies to reach restricted sources, (e.g., Netflix, BBC, Spotify), you're out of luck.
Those two restrictions make the Chromecast not very useful for my purposes. Root access would have been an approach to fix item #2, but now that's gone. So, I'm wondering if anybody knows of any development that's underway to deal with these issues? I took a quick look at the Chromecast API and I didn't see any way to manage the wi-fi connection or to change the DNS settings. I'm hoping some clever developer will figure out a way to deal with this.
Interesting, I was hoping to do the same thing. Some hotels don't require login but most do now. Has anyone tested it?
You could use a laptop and a micro router. I carry a mini tplink router to hotels to use. You can put it and a laptop on that router then stream from the browser to the chromecast. Not perfect but a workaround. Not sure if there is a way to stream directly from a phone or tablet yet.
Virtual Router should work, as (I believe) it supports multicast. Unfortunately, quite a few wifi cards will crash when using it, though. I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing... but that unfortunately can't sustain a connection with the software enabled.
I've used my rooted phone as wifi hotspot/router and then connect tablet or laptop to control chromecast. Unfortunately if a phone is in hotspot mode, chromecasting on same phone won't work so need to use second device to control chromecast.
Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.
One advantage to using the CC is quality. The mhl adapters just don't have the quality and at a hotel with decent speed the router is not an issue. Besides you will not loose speed if you are plugging your router into the LAN.
woody1 said:
Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
life is better with r00t
willverduzco said:
Virtual Router I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiiiiiiight :silly:
willverduzco said:
[I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol i have one of those too, and we all know exactly why you have it
http://readwrite.com/2013/08/06/chromecast-hotel-travel-wi-fi-challenges#awesm=~ofCmrzdqug8DvB
http://www.connectify.me/hotspot-chromecast-best-friend/
yeah connectify gives my really inconsistent results. so far only netflix and youtube have worked. music hasn't at all. If I could figure out the cause I'd buy the pro version while its still on sale.
At one point I was planning to get a WL-330NUL mini router. Watch video here. (Supposedly the world's smallest) Given that it's a WiFi router... I believe it could work with the chromecast dongle using a WiFi connected smartphone/tablet/laptop. Looking at the video it appears that in standalone mode it can route using Ethernet on the WAN end and using a laptop it can route using WiFi in the WAN end. In the later scenario the laptop is used to authenticate with the hotel WiFi network and the router dongle appears to act as an AP. Not 100% sure of the second scenario, but it "appears" to be so. The router can be found online for the same price you paid for your chromecast. If I get a chance, before the end of the week, I might stop by B&H Photo-Video and pick one up.
Edit:
Here is another video that shows the features a bit more clearly
I really think that the Chromecast was designed as a way to turn your TV into a "smart" TV... not so much to be a portable device for media streaming. Even bringing it between three houses is annoying as you need to go through the full setup process each time you move between wireless networks since it only stores the most recent network.
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.
raptir said:
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.
I use a tplink micro router. I plug into the ether net and it still requires that I log in. So I'm not sure if that will even work.
Life is better with root.
tamanaco said:
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.
raptir said:
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router-laptop setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.
tamanaco said:
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
raptir said:
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Edit: Btw, I agree that having a laptop or tablet with separate HDMI port an HDMI cable is a better solution, but since this thread was about chromecast in hotels I was trying to keep the discussion relevant while exploring a "possible" solution.
tamanaco said:
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.
raptir said:
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had updated my post before your reply. In essence we're in agreement about having an HDMI cable, but I believe that the possibility exist for making this work with just a smartphone with bluetooth and the chromecast dongle. My understanding is that the chromecast also has bluetooth capabilities. So a firmware update and basic browser in the chromecast can be use to authenticate with the hotel's WiFi network while the smartphone can act as a remote via Bluetooth. Just speculating here... but who knows.
I have a lg smart TV with miracast and even though it shows my moto x as available it won't connect. The moto x does not show the TV available, miracast on the tv does the device search but the moto does not search for a device. Any one tried to use miracast?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
You should be searching devices from your phone. Go to settings display wireless display and try to search while miracast is enabled on your TV you're basically setting up a hotspot from phone to TV
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My smart tv is a bit finicky like that. Try going into the app you want on the tv and you should be presented with a way to connect to it through the browser. ie. when I use the youtube app to cast to my tv I have to scan a barcode first that is provided through the tv's youtube app interface before I can begin casting. Once I disconnect from my tv I have to do the process all over again. Maybe yours is the same way? Doesn't hurt to troubleshoot and see what options you have available.
I want to share my pictures or even video taken on the phone but there is not a share option to share with a TV available. I hoped to play on the phone and share via miracast to the TV. And not having a HDMI or mhl connection is a deal breaker for me ( thought miracast would make up for the lack of hdmi /mhl). What a waste of money this phone has been!, its a phone I can't recommend until a solution is available.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So there's no solution what a shame thought this was a great phone until now what a big let down a Motorola fail.
Note to self Buy a phone that has a HDMI !
re
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
ganasiff said:
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to search for the TV from your phone go look on YouTube maybe get really close and try again.
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred). However this Sony video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_QrYSEN2Vo implies you can play a video or picture on your phone, and have it show on your TV. I'll have to try that later today when I get a chance.
KidJoe said:
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
kenrw7 said:
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to look into it further. The Wireless display option on the X under App Drawer -> Settings -> Display -> Wireless Display... the learn more link takes me to -> http://help.motorola.com/hc/apps/wd/10/en-us/lm-wireless.html which states "To get started, you need a Miracast™ compatible HDTV or a Miracast wireless display adapter to connect to your HDTV"
As for the Wifi Alliance and certification... there are basic wifi connection standards which ensure interoperability between devices, brands, etc. And then there are wifi features that can be add on. This doesn't mean every Wireless N device supports all the same features (look at Wifi N.. you can have 2.4ghz or dualband 2.4Ghz+5Ghz Wifi N).
To help explain that better, think of Bluetooth and phones.. something OLD I wrote up -> http://mark.cdmaforums.com/BT-PHONE.htm all the phones listed on that page are BT certified... But notice the different profiles each support? Same thing with wifi and wifi certification.
for the rest, I'm late for my son's T-ball game, so I'll reply later when I get a chance...
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
edit not found AP setting.
But easily connected my windows tablet to the TV using Intelwidi
KidJoe
Thank you for time taken and advice given. Ive resigned myself to the fact that I'm unable to connect the phone to the TV. As said earlier it is easier to change the phone, no matter how good the moto x is (which it is) it may be a lg fault but I'm not I'm not getting the functuallity I want.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Now that I have some time, I just want to dive into this a little more so we both understand this a little better... I'm no expert on this stuff, I'm just learning...
kenrw7 said:
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've been able to find and read on the subject, Wifi Display, WiDi, and WiFi Direct are different. WiDi is an intel standard that has been out for a few years. Its used by intel based PC's and laptops to use a TV as a monitor without wires. Wifi Direct can connect two wifi devices directly, and can be used to transfer files. Wifi Display I'm still learning about as it appears to just be an underlying component to Miracast and Miracast Certification, not something used separately.
from the 5 Frequently Asked Questions on -> http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=Wifi display#.U2-IAIFdUhE
Code:
[B]What is the difference between Miracast and Wi-Fi Display?[/B]
Miracast is the brand for the certification program operated by Wi-Fi Alliance. Devices that pass this certification testing can be referred to as “Miracast devices”. Miracast certification is based on the Wi-Fi Alliance Wi-Fi Display Specification. This is the underlying technological specification developed by Wi-Fi Alliance members, and is copyrighted and owned by Wi-Fi Alliance.
[b]How is Miracast related to Wi-Fi Direct?[/b]
Wi-Fi Direct allows devices to connect directly to each other, without the need for a Wi-Fi AP, and requiring just the push of a button, the entry of a PIN, or tapping two NFC-capable devices together. Wi-Fi Direct allows source and display devices to discover one another and provides the underlying device-to-device connectivity for Miracast. Miracast builds upon Wi-Fi Direct with mechanisms to negotiate video capabilities, setup content protection (if needed), stream content, and maintain the video session.
kenrw7 said:
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Widi is NOT Miracast, see the above WiDi link I supplied. WiDi and Wifi Display are not listed on the certification documents for your TV and the X, only Wifi-Direct. In addition to Wifi-Direct, the certification sheet for the X also lists Miracast-Source.
So with the LG web site claiming Widi and Wifi Display, they might not have received certification for it. Why can they show the wifi alliance certificaiton on their box? Maybe because they received certifications for the other parts (like wifi-direct and connectivity)?
kenrw7 said:
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are various levels of Wifi Alliance certification. Basic connection, Basic interoperability standards, backwards compatibility, etc. They ensure that you pick up a Wireless G card from belkin and it connects to your Netgear Wireless G router, or that your wireless N card can work with your B, G, or N router properly, etc. Just that "connect" needs Wifi Alliance certification, and that is enough to bare the symbol on the box. Then there are the "add-ons" like Wifi Direct, Miracast, etc.
My older LG BD390 and BD570 bluray players have the Wifi Certification logo on the box. Only wireless they can do is make a connection to a B, G, or N access point.
Think of it this way... You can buy a Buick Verano... get it equipped with or without Nav, with our without leather type interior, with or without sunroof... but any way you buy it, its a Buick Verano. Yeah, its not the best analogy, but I hope it, and the bluetooth link for the older phones I provided, illustrates different configuration possibilities while still being able to have the "certification" logo.
Oh, and there is similar dis-function in the DLNA certification process!! (even though my BD390 and BD570 received DLNA certification and have the logo on the sides of their boxes, they do not properly adhere to DLNA standards so some DLNA servers like Serviio and others don't properly work with them)
kenrw7 said:
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each vendor is going to blame the other. That is how it goes. They build their devices to a "standard" and get it "certified" so they think it must be the other guy's fault.
kenrw7 said:
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As suggested earlier, you could buy a real Miracast dongle for your TV. It will probably be more cost effective than replacing the phone.
Or you could by a Samsung phone. I think they still support MHL on the S5. Or they support their AllCast Share (which would need a device for your TV to make work).
All that being said, the Wifi Alliance Certification certificate for my Sony KDL-5HX750 is very similar to yours, except your TV supports 5Ghz A band wifi, where mine does not. Both only list WPA/WPA2 Security, Wifi B, G, N, Wifi-Direct, WMM, and WPS.
The X (XT1060/XT1050/XT941L) lists those plus support for Wifi Direct and Miracast Source.
So in the interest of this discussion, and to see what is possible, I tried Wifi Direct via the following -> http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/bravia_i-manuals/FY11/GA/eng/HX920_DS/nt_wfdirect.html and I can make the connection. If I follow -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0wnkZUVDKs I get to the 1:20 mark just fine, and the connection is established. The video then demonstrates "throwing" content from the device. The built in video player and photo gallery apps on the X do not have these options, unless I can find an add on app in the store?
I need to better understand the statement of "media remote" in the video since Sony does have a Media Remote app in the PlayStore, but that has been replaced by what looks like a TV remote only app. Installing the older Media Remote (OLD) app from the play store, In DEMO MODE I do get throw/catch options on my phone. I will have to get time to try and use this while connected to my TV. Its Mothers day, so that will have to wait.
Ivy did know there is a difference between wifi direct (file transfer) wifi display (streaming) widi (Intel streaming). I have widi working with my Intel tablet. But ive not got WiFi display working with TV/phone may be because the tv is not branded as miracast. Reading your post I read as there are 2 WiFi display standards, one of which is the miracast brand the other unbranded and from my experience you can't make connectivity between the two. TV ( WiFi display) will not connect to moto x (miracast) even both are certified. So miracast:miracast or WiFi display:WiFi display only
But not WiFi display:miracast
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I've got an LG Smart TV and Miracast works flawlessly with it any time I want to use it.
My Nexus 5 was very flaky and wouldn't connect properly but the Moto X is perfect.
Wutang200 which model number is your LG?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I am frequently presenting on open WiFi networks, but the catch on these networks is they usually require click-through on a webpage. The CC cannot preform the click-through so using CC on these networks fails.
I am looking for alternatives to engineer a working solution to allow the CC to work depending only on the open WiFi network with click-through requirements. There are at least two other (less desirable) working methods. First, create my own WiFi hotspot, but this has a significant disadvantage that the audience wants to connect to my WiFi hotspot to experiment with the CC. Second, connect to a secure WiFi network without click-through requirement, but this is frequently not available at my presentation locations. I realize I can use the CC on a secure network with password, as long as it does not require click-through on a web page.
The ideal solution/workaround would allow the CC to connect to some AP or other WiFi point that was bridged or sourced by an "open WiFi network that requires click-through" as these types of networks are most frequently available. Plus the audience is usually already connected to the same network. But, I have not thought of a useful method to accomplish it, likely because of my limited network engineering and hardware knowledge. Two other nice-to-have features would be (1) portability and (2) working with both Windows 7 x64 and Mac OS if a laptop is used to accomplish the bridge or AP.
Methods might include something simple I'm overlooking, or an CC application, or a hardware solution (like turning my laptop into an AP after connecting to the "open WiFi network that requires click-through", or anything else.
Any suggestions highly appreciated.
PS: I am not rooted if recommending an Android device or application.
-----
SOLVED.
The solution was using TP-Link 150Mbps Wireless N Mini Pocket Router TL-WR710N configured in "WISP Client Router Mode". I bought mine on Amazon here for $27.27 USD plus tax. An extra feature is a USB port which can be used to power the CCast.
As discussed in the thread, there is WISP mode *wired* LAN, and WISP mode *wireless* LAN.
Some devices implement WISP mode by connecting to a public WiFi network and giving you *wired* local LAN. Alone, these do not work with CCast because CCast requires a *wireless* local LAN. WISP mode to *wired* LAN does NOT work.
Yet, the TL-WR710N implements WISP mode by connecting to a public WiFi network and giving you a *wireless* local LAN, complete with new Wireless Network Name (SSID) and IP address scheme served by DHCP. This works 100% with CCast.
Once the CCast is configured on the local SSID and local IP (default 192.168.0.1xx) you can cast Youtube, etc., or screen cast from your Android device.
No wonder there is confusion about WISP mode implementation.
Many thanks to people contributing to this thread's discussion!!
Note: Cloning the CCast MAC is *not* required because you can connect any device to the TL-WR710N in WISP mode and use the browser to click-through - authorizing the WR710N MAC on your public WiFi. Then all the clients, including CCast, connecting on the local *wireless* LAN simply work.
You need a program that will let you clone the CCast's MAC address on a computer, unplug the CCast...
Clone the Mac Address, Do the click through, Disconnect the computer UnClone the Mac Address. Re-Connect the CCast.
Connect the computer as normal.
But be warned...Most APs who have a click through page for access also have AP Isolation turned on which makes it impossible to find the CCast to stream to it.
Asphyx said:
You need a program that will let you clone the CCast's MAC address on a computer, unplug the CCast...
Clone the Mac Address, Do the click through, Disconnect the computer UnClone the Mac Address. Re-Connect the CCast.
Connect the computer as normal.
But be warned...Most APs who have a click through page for access also have AP Isolation turned on which makes it impossible to find the CCast to stream to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay thanks. I will test cloning.
But, if you are correct and most networks have AP Isolation preventing CC, then I need an alternative solution.
------
I was intrigued by this post. But configuring an TL-WR703N with "openwrt+luci web interface" is not clear to me. Yet, this seems a possible good solution.
Also, browsing this link at Cisco made me think what user @bagl0312 accomplished is quite good.
Bob Smith42 said:
Okay thanks. I will test cloning.
But, if you are correct and most networks have AP Isolation preventing CC, then I need an alternative solution.
------
I was intrigued by this post. But configuring an TL-WR703N with "openwrt+luci web interface" is not clear to me. Yet, this seems a possible good solution.
Also, browsing this link at Cisco made me think what user @bagl0312 accomplished is quite good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think there are better options for Remote usage such as Portable routers with the ability to connect to other wireless AP devices for it's WAN,
Or if you already have a cellular data account for your phone, adding one of those MiFi wireless hotspot devices that you can use as a router pretty much anywhere including where there is no free WiFi.
You just have to be careful with the latter option because Data Charges will apply if you use too much Internet access on them.
Asphyx said:
I think there are better options for Remote usage such as Portable routers with the ability to connect to other wireless AP devices for it's WAN,
Or if you already have a cellular data account for your phone, adding one of those MiFi wireless hotspot devices that you can use as a router pretty much anywhere including where there is no free WiFi.
You just have to be careful with the latter option because Data Charges will apply if you use too much Internet access on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does anyone have any recommended models for *portable* routers with "wifi as wan" capability?
Bob Smith42 said:
Does anyone have any recommended models for *portable* routers with "wifi as wan" capability?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're looking for what's typically known as a "travel router" and the "WiFi as WAN" feature, as least on my Zyxel routers is called "WISP mode" (Wireless ISP).
It does exactly what you said, instead of using a wired connection for WAN, it uses a wireless connection - the router still functions as a router, so you might have some issues with double-NAT-ing in some cases.
I have both the MWR211 (single Ethernet port so you can do wired LAN or wired WAN but not both simultaneously) and MWR222 (two Ethernet ports, so you can do both wired LAN and WAN simultaneousl) - they're almost identical, save for lacking SNMP on the MWR211. I have not had opportunity to use the WISP mode though I've used the 3G (they support most USB cell modems) as backup from time to time.
Info's a little lacking since they're discontinued models, but I got them off a Woot deal while back for under $50.
MWR211/222 manual
bhiga said:
You're looking for what's typically known as a "travel router" and the "WiFi as WAN" feature, as least on my Zyxel routers is called "WISP mode" (Wireless ISP).
It does exactly what you said, instead of using a wired connection for WAN, it uses a wireless connection - the router still functions as a router, so you might have some issues with double-NAT-ing in some cases.
I have both the MWR211 (single Ethernet port so you can do wired LAN or wired WAN but not both simultaneously) and MWR222 (two Ethernet ports, so you can do both wired LAN and WAN simultaneousl) - they're almost identical, save for lacking SNMP on the MWR211. I have not had opportunity to use the WISP mode though I've used the 3G (they support most USB cell modems) as backup from time to time.
Info's a little lacking since they're discontinued models, but I got them off a Woot deal while back for under $50.
MWR211/222 manual
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This information was helpful. I read the manual. I will have to test the double-NATing with CC, e.g. issues with WAN accessing private vs public network IP as described in the manual. I found an inexpensive MWR222 to evaluate.
I suspect its wireless WAN mode will help, but when set in that mode it looks like it may not (guess) simultaneously have hotspot capability. Still, in that case, I can connect a small AP to its Ethernet LAN and probably get the CC working. I will test my hypothesis and report CC results once I receive the device.
I also found an inexpensive TL-WR703N with memory updates (RAM, Flash) that is supposed to support OpenWrt. I will flash it with OpenWrt once I get it and report CC results. Hopefully, I can reproduce @bagl0312 configuration with CC with success.
I am starting to understand the networking issues and configurations required. Everyone's help is appreciated. Thanks.
Bob Smith42 said:
This information was helpful. I read the manual. I will have to test the double-NATing with CC, e.g. issues with WAN accessing private vs public network IP as described in the manual. I found an inexpensive MWR222 to evaluate.
I suspect its wireless WAN mode will help, but when set in that mode it looks like it may not (guess) simultaneously have hotspot capability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You wouldn't want hotspot capability if you are using it in WAN mode anyway since you will be using the Wireless internet connection from the location and not the data plan of your Cell Service.
Thats why you want the WAN/WISP option in the first place to stop from having to eat into your Data Allotment on your Cell Carrier account.
Asphyx said:
You wouldn't want hotspot capability if you are using it in WAN mode anyway since you will be using the Wireless internet connection from the location and not the data plan of your Cell Service.
Thats why you want the WAN/WISP option in the first place to stop from having to eat into your Data Allotment on your Cell Carrier account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. I need both, unless someone figures out another workaround (see below).
The CC has two requirements:
(1) connect to public IP (internet) for data, and
(2) connect to local IP (android devices, chrome on laptops, iphones, etc) for remote control and mirroring.
CC configurations issues with WiFi services offering access to public IP (internet) are:
(1) Both open or encrypted networks frequently have web page click-through requirements that CC cannot perform, and
(2) CC and connecting WiFi devices must connect point-to-point on the local IP network which is frequently blocked (AP isolation, etc).
I agree with you because I do not *want* a dual WiFi network solution, but I have found no alternatives so far. lol
We can engineer a dual WiFi network solution for sure, but it might be easier to address some of the core usability issues of the CC in some other (more clever) way. Some other workarounds might include combinations from (or may not be possible):
(1) Cloning MAC on CC to bypass click-through requirements.
(2) Add BT capability on CC. Overcome AP isolation on the local IP network using high bandwidth BT for remote control and screen mirroring.
(3) Add browser capability on CC for click-through, and mouse or touch control for CC.
(4) Clever method to defeat WiFi local IP network AP isolation between CC and devices.
(5) Others?
Hopefully someone is already working on better solutions.
Bob Smith42 said:
No. I need both, unless someone figures out another workaround (see below).
The CC has two requirements:
(1) connect to public IP (internet) for data, and
(2) connect to local IP (android devices, chrome on laptops, iphones, etc) for remote control and mirroring.
CC configurations issues with WiFi services offering access to public IP (internet) are:
(1) Both open or encrypted networks frequently have web page click-through requirements that CC cannot perform, and
(2) CC and connecting WiFi devices must connect point-to-point on the local IP network which is frequently blocked (AP isolation, etc).
I agree with you because I do not *want* a dual WiFi network solution, but I have found no alternatives so far. lol
We can engineer a dual WiFi network solution for sure, but it might be easier to address some of the core usability issues of the CC in some other (more clever) way. Some other workarounds might include combinations from (or may not be possible):
(1) Cloning MAC on CC to bypass click-through requirements.
(2) Add BT capability on CC. Overcome AP isolation on the local IP network using high bandwidth BT for remote control and screen mirroring.
(3) Add browser capability on CC for click-through, and mouse or touch control for CC.
(4) Clever method to defeat WiFi local IP network AP isolation between CC and devices.
(5) Others?
Hopefully someone is already working on better solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the Router will do the proper NAT Translation for you for the Internet access...
When the CCast asks for something from the internet it asks the portable router then the portable router will use the location WiFi to get it and then send it to the CCast.
The CCast doesn't need a public IP it only needs to be connected to a device that can get internet data.
what you do have to do however is use a different IP Range on the DHCP server of the portable router...
So if the Router gets an IP like 192.168.1.x from the WiFi you have to use a different set like 192.168.2.x for your DHCP server...
@Bob Smith42 's concern is valid, I didn't think about the fact that WLAN as WAN takes out the AP functionality. I just confirmed this.
So, really what we end up needing is still two devices - a wireless bridge to get wireless to wired - either a router in WISP mode or something like Cisco/Linksys WET610N (I keep laughing at the "Up to 300 Mbps" as it only has a 100 Mbps Ethernet port), and a router to provide the AP...
IMO, the "local WiFi" network really is the best way to go. It may seem redundant at times, but at least you can still do stuff if you have no WiFi, or WiFi is paid per-client (it's changing, but a number of hotels I've been at were like this).
As for other mechanisms, maybe the "Don't need to be on the same WiFi" feature that's coming will address this, but I don't think it will. Then again, I didn't think screen casting would happen on older hardware like my Galaxy S3, and it does (via MirrorEnabler), so maybe I'll be pleasantly proved wrong again.
bhiga said:
@Bob Smith42 's concern is valid, I didn't think about the fact that WLAN as WAN takes out the AP functionality. I just confirmed this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I stand corrected and have to add thats just bad design...You should be able to to simply connect the Portable to the WiFi and then use it as your Wireless AP for multiple devices otherwise what is the point of this WISP mode at all? Unless it is to turn Wireless into Wired only...
Google does have a solution to solve this in the pipeline...That Proximity streaming we talked about where you can stream to it over Cell data without being connected to the home network.
But thats just going to ring up data charges I would think.
Asphyx said:
what is the point of this WISP mode at all? Unless it is to turn Wireless into Wired only...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what WISP is for. The MWR2xx series mainly takes a wired/wireless ISP connection and turns it into a wireless/wired connection with USB modem backup.
The MWR222 can also do wired-wired with USB failover since it has two Ethernet ports.
Given the age of the design I'm not sure the WiFi chip they use can operate as both client and AP simultaneously.
bump
Thread updated. TL-WR710N works 100% with CCast on all (tested so far) WiFi networks.
Bob Smith42 said:
bump
Thread updated. TL-WR710N works 100% with CCast on all (tested so far) WiFi networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats how I understood those Portable routers were supposed to work so you could add things like Portable Wireless printers all the while having internet access from configured Wireless APs...
Ok so I picked up this 710N router on Amazon since I had a gift certificate I needed to use and while the promise of this router seems to be there I'm having real issues getting it to work properly but part of that has to do with it really requires a WIRED Connection to set up properly.
It does seem to do what we would need in a Hotel but I have not been able to mimic that on this unit using my own router and I'm suspecting that maybe my Router is not supporting it or I'm just reading the settings wrong.
I'll keep trying here and see what it requires...I Might need to set up the guest network cause the issue might be the click through is not there or my regular router is set to NOT allow another AP to connect...Just got it today so I will continue to play with it.
Asphyx said:
Ok so I picked up this 710N router on Amazon since I had a gift certificate I needed to use and while the promise of this router seems to be there I'm having real issues getting it to work properly but part of that has to do with it really requires a WIRED Connection to set up properly.
It does seem to do what we would need in a Hotel but I have not been able to mimic that on this unit using my own router and I'm suspecting that maybe my Router is not supporting it or I'm just reading the settings wrong.
I'll keep trying here and see what it requires...I Might need to set up the guest network cause the issue might be the click through is not there or my regular router is set to NOT allow another AP to connect...Just got it today so I will continue to play with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rest assured, it works great for me. E.g. when I was at Starbucks (requires click through, has AP isolation) I got CCast working with WISP on my private SSID. Testing a few corporate locations today. The CCast took a while to *finish* setup, it hung first time. So I pulled power and tried twice. Second time worked. Not very scientific, sorry. I definitely used my laptop to click through on Starbucks and I was wired during setup. I will attempt to run some configuration tests non-wired too (thanks for update). The big advantage of the 710N is inexpensive, if you have AC power source.
Also, I found another awesome portable router, better for CCast in my situation but also more expensive, e.g. $60 USD. I configured this one completely non-wired.
-----
UPDATE: The HooToo TM04 does *not* work on certain networks. Do Not Buy!!! Read below...
------
HooToo TM04 product webpage here, and amazon here. It is a really new item.
This item costs $60 USD on amazon. It has 6000 mah battery and without external power it can power two USB items (1) CCast plus second USB item (like phone, tablet, drive, pico projector, etc). Has two battery recharging modes: wall AC (faster) or microUsb. Lots of other features. Good review videos on YouTube here.
Good luck.
@Asphyx
# TL-WR710N
I configured my CCast on another network (so it required reconfiguration at Starbucks) and took it back to Starbucks. I plugged the TL-WR710N into AC power, without wiring anything on NIC WAN nor LAN, and waiting about 2 minutes. Since I had already configured the 710N for WISP mode it restarted in that mode. It was the *same* location I had previously configured WISP, so that probably helps. (I will test WISP on new location tonight).
At this point I tried CCast setup. I connected my Nexus 7 (2013) to the 710N WiFi SSID. Using the Nexus 7 I attempted to setup the CCast, and completed all the input configuration screens. But, the Setup screen *hangs* after confirming name and entering my WiFi SSID password. By hanging I mean the CCast app big circle keeps spinning and after about 5 minutes returns an error. But, this error is wrong because the CCast device is actually configured and working.
I must perform the Starbucks click-through on the Nexus 7 2013 to register the 710N MAC address to access the internet.
While the CCast app circle is spinning I switched to YouTube and it casts perfectly. Also, I can screen cast the Nexus 7 2013. I tried a couple tricks but the CCast app never successfully *completed* setup, yet the CCast device works 100%. Hmmmm.
# HooToo TM04
-----
UPDATE: The HooToo TM04 does *not* work on certain networks. Do Not Buy!!! Read below...
------
So, I substituted the HooToo TM04 at Starbucks. The configuration was completely wireless (never used NIC cables) and basically the CCast app setup completed successfully! All the CCast device features (YouTube internet cast, local Nexus 7 2013 screen cast) worked 100%. Very simple and smooth configuration with no glitches.
# Summary
The difference was only the CCast app setup result, The 710N *hangs* with a spinning circle and eventually returns an error dialog, but the CCast device is configured and working 100%. The HooToo completes setup correctly, and CCast device is configured and working 100%.
I am now wondering if there is a setting on the TL-WR710N required to allow CCast app setup to complete successfully (even though the CCast device is configured and working)?
I will test further. Any comments or feedback requested.
Bob Smith42 said:
@Asphyx
# TL-WR710N
...
But, the Setup screen *hangs* after confirming name and entering my WiFi SSID password. By hanging I mean the CCast app big circle keeps spinning and after about 5 minutes returns an error. But, this error is wrong because the CCast device is actually configured and working.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chromecast setup app has done the same to me a few times - and that's on my home WiFi that works fine.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think it's just some kind of timing glitch.
As long as exiting and returning to the Chromecast setup app reports Ready to Cast and Chromecast works, it's good to go.
Oh I'm sure it does work Bob, I'm just missing something and what makes it worse is I was trying to do this all through Wireless and a mobile device which this unit is difficult to setup with.
I set up WISP mode but the issue is on reboot it didn't give me an SSID to reconnect.
I'm sure I'm just borking something in the settings so when I have the chance to do this all via wired connection I will play with it a bit more...
Hi guys,
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
It does not only need a Wi-Fi connection (which is normal : the wireless signal has to come from somewhere) but it also needs an internet connection.
I would like to cast the screen of my smartphone when I'm not at home.
So I got me a wireless router.
I activate it.
The Chromecast can connect to it.
The Smartphone can connect to it.
And so the smartphone can connect to the Chromecast.
But that's it...
I can't cast anything because I have no internet connection.
OK.
So I turned on my phone as an access point.
I then configured the travel router to get the internet connection from the phone.
Cool... now the Chromecast says it's ready to cast.
But now I'm stuck because as soon as I want to cast something from my phone to the Chromecast, I have to turn Wi-Fi on...
But turning on Wi-Fi on my phone disables the AP.
And so the Chromecast refuses to display anything because it's not connected to the internet anymore !
Isn't that about the most stupid thing ever designed ?
Frankly, I then see only really little use to it...
And I think I am not the only one : there are about 10 apps that are Cast capable...
And that after more than a year the dongle has been released !
Will look for something that is able to cast without an internet connection.
Will probably be much easier... and maybe even cheaper !
If you have an advice on how to get this POS to work without an internet connection, I'll gladly take your advice.
If that is not easily achieved, if you have an alternative, I'll gladly consider it...
regards.
What are you trying to send to your Chromecast? Netflix, YouTube, and other services that have the cast button basically act as remote controls for the Chromecast, but it needs its own Internet connection to stream the content as your phone is just inputting commands for it.
You could try (albeit I've never done this) connecting the Chromecast to your hotspot access point, and then just using the built-in screen mirroring feature of the Chromecast app. Granted, that would mean you'd have to leave your phone's screen on...but it would show the same thing that's on the phone, on the TV. And I'm not sure if that would even work since you still don't have WiFi on and your phone is acting as the modem and not as a device on the same network.
The only other things I could suggest, would be to buy additional hardware. You could go through your carrier to purchase one of those hotspot devices, then connect your phone and your Chromecast to that, and that will work. Though with that option you'll most likely have to pay an extra fee for the data line for the hotspot device. The other route you could take, would be to buy a cheap tablet or another phone and use it as the controller when your primary phone is in hotspot mode. The latter option is what my friend does as he uses his phone's unlimited data plan to provide Internet through his entire house when he's at home...and just uses his tablet to stream Netflix to the Chromecast.
If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.
You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.
I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.
I like my chromecast, but my android stick gets about 10x more usage. Chromecast seriously needs some more streaming services. If you don't have Netflix, in the UK it has about two widely used apps (youtube and iplayer), and that's it, not great this far on.
Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app
NexusPenguin said:
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just you... Everyone else have internet connection at home, which is normal these days...
Hi Srandista,
Yes, everyboby has an internet connection at home.
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
So we're saying the same thing :
- at home everyone has an internet connection AND connected devices => the Chromecast is useless ;
- when you're not at home, the Chromecast is useless until you're somewhere where you can get an internet connection...
And even then : if I want to cast a Video to my Chromecast, I have to upload my video to the cloud BEFORE I start to stream...
Isn't that ridiculous ? Especially as using other software allows to stream directly ?
Just for your information : there are other devices like the Chromecast (they even look like the Chromecast) that can be used without an internet connection.
Sorry, but despite your answer, I persist saying that the Chromecast conception lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs.
Regards.
DJames1 said:
If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
But that won't work. As I wrote in my post : if I turn on my phone as an AP, that disables the Wi-Fi. So I can't stream to my Chromecast that way.
Regards.
xFuGiToiDx said:
Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi
Many thanks for your kind reply.
I would recommend you read posts before flaming people.
If you would have, you would have noticed that I was saying I was trying to use it WHEN I AM NOT at home.
I have a 100Mbps line at home. But also a networked TV, a networked Blu-Ray player and a networked Media player /streamer.
So I don't really have the use of a Chromecast at home...
Regards.
alton987 said:
I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
That is what I usually do.
BUT : honestly :
1°) the need for an active internet connection for the thing to even work does not appear clearly ;
2°) I don't spend 5 hours researching for a 35 bucks device... my time is somewhat more precious than that.
I'll look into cheap Miracast devices. I only need to mirror my screen, so I guess that more than enough.
Regards.
primetechv2 said:
You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks...
Yes, that's what I am doing right now. Phone with a MHL adpator and HDMI plugged into the projector.
But that implies that I have a cable lying around my class and me or my student are likely to stumble on it...
That is why I wanted to use the Chromecast...
Regards.
Hi,
OK, to make things clear, here's what I would like to do.
I am a teacher.
During my class I pass .ppt slides on a VP.
During my class, I don't sit behind my desk : I walk among the students.
So what I would like to do is following :
- 1°) connect my phone to the VP with the Chromecast ;
- 2°) have my phone displaying the slides => a simple mirror of the screen will do ;
- 3°) use a tablet in "Presentation mode" as a remote for the phone so I can go the next slide when I want to.
I can achieve everything using a MHL adaptor to connect the phone to the VP.
But I would like to be able to make that wirelessly...
Chromecast is a no go... unless of course I add another device in the whole bunch : smartphone + 2 tablets. Phone as access point, tablet 1 as caster ; tablet 2 as remote. then of course, I will need some chargers, an external battery pack... Not really the simplification I was looking for.
Regards.
Goodness, the supporters of Google Cast are rather quick to throw down the gauntlet today. =( As somebody who is constantly critiquing devices, I can say with certainty that there are many things that even reading reviews will not disclose, and even if the information is available, it might be hard to find.
Telling somebody they should get internet access in the snobbish manner seen here really doesn't help matters at all either.... less bile equals a greater percentage of useful content, right? Talking about MHL or Miracast or discussing manufacturer specific options or suggesting different CC compatible devices (Matchstick anyone? It's coming in 2015) might be more helpful.
For example, as it stands, I can't believe using a phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot would knock out its data functionality... or at least that it would make it impossible to connect to a CC. That seems like a fundamental problem there.
Here is the best possible solution for you nexus....
You will have to give up on the Phone showing the slides because you are attempting to stream to two devices which doesn't work.
You really shouldn't need the phone to display...
Plug the CCast into the Projector....
Turn on the Hotspot feature of your phone, It will still get it's data and email and tweets ect ect ....
Set up the CCast to get it's internet from the Phone WiFi Hotspot and then connect the tablet to the Hotspot as well.
You should then be able to cast the screen of the tablet to the Projector and run your slideshow.
You might even be able to use some other powerpoint viewer app that supports CCast (I think VBU kit does that) but you can just as easily screen cast the tablet to the projector if your tablet supports it.
You should be good to go the only thing that you will be missing is the display of the slides on the phone and since you are manipulating the slides on the tablet there really is no reason to see them on the phone as well.
I was pretty much going to recommend a similar fix. I have an old crap phone with no data plan that I play movies on while traveling. I just setup my actual phone as the hotspot and have my crap phone and CC connect to it. I have heard :? that the app that shall remain nameless thing works pretty good. I use Avia to throw those shows to my CC.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
hell yeah!
NexusPenguin said:
Hi Srandista,
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love my Chromecast. Prior to buying it, I had:
- A Blu-Ray player with internet connectivity... with a slow, horrible interface, and poor streaming services support.... that also didn't stream from local devices.
- An HDTV with no network support
- A "media player" that didn't work with most/any of the pay-for streaming services, that I had to constantly troubleshoot, with a low Wife Acceptance Factor.
With the Chromecast I can stream locally (from a Plex Server), watch most of the pay-for streaming services I want (so I can "cut the cord"), and it "just works" as far as the Wife is concerned, so she's happy. Even my kiddos can use it. Given that the Chromecast remains the top seller in the Electronics category at Amazon, I think Google hit the nail on the head with this one. Far from a "stupid", "useless", "ridiculous", concept that "lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs" that results in the "worst experience ever".
Just because you're pissed that the square peg you bought won't fit in a round hole doesn't mean the device is stupid or useless. It's like the saying goes that "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Go get yourself a screwdriver, because you have the wrong tool for your particular job. I mentioned Plex once already: If you're looking for a simple, offline streaming experience with that works like the Chromecast does get yourself a Raspberry Pi, and install RaspPlex on it. If you're trying to playback from a local disk, put XBMC on it instead. I plan on putting a media center in my kid-hauler, and one of these two will probably end up being what I use. There are many options out there for offline playback, but the Chromecast it not one of them.
Well said. I have two chromecast and they are exactly what I need. Very useful.
Sent from my SM-N910V using XDA Free mobile app