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.
Related
I have a Tilt and expect to stay in a hotel that has Internet access via Ethernet, but no WiFi.
Any ideas on how to best connect my Tilt to their Ethernet?
First idea is maybe a WiFi travel router or AP like the DWL-6730AP, but I hate the idea of carrying along extra equipment when the whole point of the Tilt is to avoid bringing my laptop.
Is there some sort of Ethernet-to-USB dongle?
The Tilt has Ethernet support native. Go to settings, select Wifi & switch to NE2000 Compatible Ethernet Driver.
capite said:
I have a Tilt and expect to stay in a hotel that has Internet access via Ethernet, but no WiFi.
Any ideas on how to best connect my Tilt to their Ethernet?
First idea is maybe a WiFi travel router or AP like the DWL-6730AP, but I hate the idea of carrying along extra equipment when the whole point of the Tilt is to avoid bringing my laptop.
Is there some sort of Ethernet-to-USB dongle?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. welcome to xda-devs
2. there is no memory card- or USB-based Ethernet interface for the Kaiser, sorry. Ethernet cards have only been produced as CF cards.
You could use something like a Linksys (or any brand, for that matter) WiFi router to do the trick and then connect to it.
You may run into an issue, though, because most hotels have an entry page where you have to accept their terms of service (yes, even the free ones do this) before getting out to the internet. It is possible that your router will not forward that properly to your phone, or that PIE won't render it properly and you won't be able to finish the signup.
Also note that unless you have something like a WRT54G Linksys router with custom firmware (like DD-WRT), you will be double-NATted, which may, in itself, cause problems.
@GSLEON3 - sure, the IP stack in the Tilt supports Ethernet, but you have to get Layer 1 out of the way first - the physical layer. If you can't physically connect an ethernet cable to the phone, how are you gonna get to the internet?
A lot of hotels have WiFi bridges so that you can use wireless-only devices on their network. Maybe they have one available? Then again, now that I think about it, maybe not. I'm thinking of the other way around where you don't have WiFi in your laptop and they only have WiFi, not ethernet connections. Nevermind. It's late...
I *think* this might work.....
Eithernet-to-USB cable
(http://www.ipenabled.com/netusb.html)
Then patch to a female-female USB coupler (http://www.revealcable.co.uk/acatalog/info_1_AA1582.html)
Then connect that to your normal PC sync cable.
Eithernet at one end, microUSB at the other.
The USB on the Kaiser doesn't work that way. It can act like a client (think ext. hard drive) but not a host (your PC). It's the same reason you can't connect an external hard drive to your phone.
capite said:
I have a Tilt and expect to stay in a hotel that has Internet access via Ethernet, but no WiFi.
Any ideas on how to best connect my Tilt to their Ethernet?
First idea is maybe a WiFi travel router or AP like the DWL-6730AP, but I hate the idea of carrying along extra equipment when the whole point of the Tilt is to avoid bringing my laptop.
Is there some sort of Ethernet-to-USB dongle?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use the 3COM Travel Router (3CRTV10075/WL-534) as its a small portable router with NAT and Firewall (stops others in the hotel from seeing your devices). It can be configured as Router, AP or Client so that in AP mode it will connect directly to the Ethernet connection in a hotel room and you have access for both your phone and laptop.
Thanks for the welcome and the ideas, everybody!
It's a shame the USB port won't work for an Internet connection. Has anyone ever tried just in case?
I guess it's a travel router then, I'll go with the 3Com unless anyone can confirm they have used the tiny Netgear WGR101 successfully.
Is the microSD conector I/O capable?? If so, we can plug there normal ethernet card....
So my PC is connected to my router by Ethernet cable. I can cast my chrome tabs and watch video play smooth with no issues. If i use my laptop that has similar specs as my pc and i connect via wifi, video will play very choppy on my tv. I have even tried it right next to my router to ensure the highest speed. A friend of mine is having the same issue with his computer which is also connected over wifi. Even at the lowest video settings its still choppy. Is this a known issue with trying to cast your tab over wifi or am I missing something?
herculese1 said:
So my PC is connected to my router by Ethernet cable. I can cast my chrome tabs and watch video play smooth with no issues. If i use my laptop that has similar specs as my pc and i connect via wifi, video will play very choppy on my tv. I have even tried it right next to my router to ensure the highest speed. A friend of mine is having the same issue with his computer which is also connected over wifi. Even at the lowest video settings its still choppy. Is this a known issue with trying to cast your tab over wifi or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guess that if your router is not an "N" router (802.11n), it's probably having a hard time taking the stream from your laptop then sending it back to the Chromecast (I could be wrong). I have an N rounter and can stream wirelesly from my desktop to the chromecast with little to no stutter.
Also, make sure your chromecast has a good wifi signal. I had to use the included HDMI extender to give mine a little extra boost in signal.
Instead of telling us it's similar specs, what are the actual specs?
lebeauc said:
I'm guess that if your router is not an "N" router (802.11n), it's probably having a hard time taking the stream from your laptop then sending it back to the Chromecast (I could be wrong). I have an N rounter and can stream wirelesly from my desktop to the chromecast with little to no stutter.
Also, make sure your chromecast has a good wifi signal. I had to use the included HDMI extender to give mine a little extra boost in signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes my router is a "N". I have a Cisco E4200V2 which is a pretty good router.
Also, make sure your chromecast has a good wifi signal. I had to use the included HDMI extender to give mine a little extra boost in signal.[/QUOTE]
luega said:
Is your tab configuration a little low? Try another tab one more time,if still choppy,that is not issue of tab but TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My chromecast doesn't move and it has enough wifi signal to stream when using the ethernet connected computer so it should have the wifi signal. How would it be the tv? It works fine with my desktop.
Wireless connection will always be less reliable than a wired connection. I also doubt that your laptop has the same specs as your desktop in reality. Also, keep in mind that the tab/screen casting feature is still under development and not entirely reliable.
Roberek said:
Wireless connection will always be less reliable than a wired connection. I also doubt that your laptop has the same specs as your desktop in reality. Also, keep in mind that the tab/screen casting feature is still under development and not entirely reliable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea i am hoping that when it comes out of beta it will be better over wifi. my pc (6 years old) is has a core 2 quad and it runs perfectly. My friend has a less than 1 year old mac that is quad core and has the issue over wifi. Theirs no way his 1 year old mac is not strong enough to support chromecast. I was ready to say "oh well it doesn't work over wifi smoothly" however it seems some people on here are claiming it should.
herculese1 said:
Yes my router is a "N". I have a Cisco E4200V2 which is a pretty good router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even with good N router, you still need to setup right
For example use only G and N mix better yet N only
Set router to use 40MHz instead of 20Mhz
Use WPA2 AES for security instead of something else
There are tons of optimization that you can do to the network.
Best way is to hack your router firmware and replace it with DDWrt
There is a large community full of people over at DDWrt that know their wireless stuff.
I have a D link router cheap but hack with DDWrt and I am streaming ok
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Landmine said:
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I ever heard of, honestly, the CC does not have any issues with regard to wifi speeds for me, I too would prefer ethernet over wifi for everything, but never have any issues using wifi with this.
You can always hook up a roku with ethernet, though it won't have some applications like AllCast and the like, but it might be all you need, though I'm not sure what your exact needs are.
You can also buy a slimport adapter and run a hdmi cable from your device to your TV directly.
There are some TV's and devices (Netgear PTV 3000 IIRC) which support Miracast that I think you can get working, ooops nm that's wireless too.
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Landmine said:
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never get buffering that's caused by the wifi...ever.
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Richieboy67 said:
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Richieboy67 said:
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
bhiga said:
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not able to look that up right now but I could have sworn it said something about that right in the CC website in the description. I could be wrong though.
##I think I was wrong on that extender thing. I think you are right as it just being an extender mainly to use if you do not have room to plug in your CC. I am not sure how much reception it will really increase though which is part of the reason I thought it acted as an antenna. lol It seems to me they could figure out how to use the cable that way fairly easily but even if it was an antenna I am not sure how much it would help for the extra money it would have cost.
Fortunately for me I do not have many wifi issues at all. I can get a decent wifi connection at my mail box even but I could see people possible having issues in a big city where there are thousands of wifi signals all around. Here there are only 3 or 4 others I see.
Well I see no reason why it would not be possible to create a network dongle that could plug into the CCast to provide wired Network other than the software (aka OS) not supporting the drivers for the Dongle.
If Google was willing it would be easy for them to create a small dongle (like the HDMI Extender) that could provide power and also add a port for Ethernet. The USB seems to have a full wiring to accommodate external peripherals like a Network Dongle.
As to why you would want this it's to increase the available bandwidth for streaming and I agree with @bhiga that it hardly defeats the purpose of the CCast. I personally think the only reason the CCast doesn't have a wired connection at this point was to keep the price down below $45 where a Roku would be competitively priced option.
I sure expect if Google releases a NextGen CCast it will have Wired network capability...And hopefully more Codec and Container support than the current model does.
bhiga said:
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
EarlyMon said:
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's usually because the TV itself has a ton of shielding to protect it from outside interference and RF from the many devices that are usually located near it.
The quick and best solution is probably to add an AP range extender on the wall the TV is located.
Most people forget that Router placement is still important even despite the advances of the N Standard...
The new AC standard is supposed to solve that even better than N if I'm not mistaken.
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