I'm having real problems with my casting....
Videos take, what seems like a lifetime to play, and photos take a while to show also.
Can it be improved in anyway?
Attached is stats from speed cast app...
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
You may need to give some more information in regards to how you have your device set-up. I had a similar issue that was caused from me not having it directly connected to the TV. I spoke with google and even though it can plug into an open HDMI on another device it will not function as efficiently as it was designed to. You may also need to try using the extender if you are not already.
I have it plugged direct into the TV and powered from a USB port on TV.
What extender are you referring too?
Valiceemo said:
I have it plugged direct into the TV and powered from a USB port on TV.
What extender are you referring too?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This one:
It comes with your Chromecast, inside of the package, and it helps to get a better Chromecast's WiFi reception.
Now, talking about your internet speed results (~12Mbps download/~1Mbps upload), they are reasonable for streaming 720p (or just HD) videos from the internet, like YouTube, Netflix, etc. At 1080p (or Full HD) you might have to deal with some long buffering, because - as far as I know - the recommended internet speed for that is between 15Mbps and 20Mbps (download).
Tip: streaming from your local network (from a PC or a laptop) is waay faster than streaming from the internet. I mean, if you download a movie on your PC/laptop, and stream it directly to your Chromecast, it will load amazingly fast compared to online streaming. In case you wanna do that, you'll need to set up a media server software on your computer (like Plex, BubbleUPnP, ...), and a media server client on your smartphone (like Plex, and BubbleUPnP as well).
_MU said:
This one:
It comes with your Chromecast, inside of the package, and it helps to get a better Chromecast's WiFi reception.
Now, talking about your internet speed results (~12Mbps download/~1Mbps upload), they are reasonable for streaming 720p (or just HD) videos from the internet, like YouTube, Netflix, etc. At 1080p (or Full HD) you might have to deal with some long buffering, because - as far as I know - the recommended internet speed for that is between 15Mbps and 20Mbps (download).
Tip: streaming from your local network (from a PC or a laptop) is waay faster than streaming from the internet. I mean, if you download a movie on your PC/laptop, and stream it directly to your Chromecast, it will load amazingly fast compared to online streaming. In case you wanna do that, you'll need to set up a media server software on your computer (like Plex, BubbleUPnP, ...), and a media server client on your smartphone (like Plex, and BubbleUPnP as well).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.
Found the extender and hooked it up.
Rebooted the Chromecast for good measure.
And in all honesty, hasn't made a noticeable difference.
I am only streaming locally from my phone (LG D802, CloudyG3 ROM).
I still have the problems from above.
I've also tried multiple casting apps and all show same 'problems'.
I ran a speed test AFTER connecting the extender for comparison...appears to have made no difference. Figures wise anyways.
Am I stuck with this due to my WiFi connection?
And is there anyway to boost the WiFi signal?
Another question.
Does the casting work on download or upload?
I'd have guessed upload...as in the file is uploaded from my phone to Chromecast?
Valiceemo said:
Another question.
Does the casting work on download or upload?
I'd have guessed upload...as in the file is uploaded from my phone to Chromecast?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both your phone and your Chromecast need to be connected to the same WiFi network, right? That means your WiFi router is responsible for getting the data from your phone (your phone upload the data) and redirecting it to your Chromecast (your Chromecast download the data). I think that's how it works. To make it happen without much buffering, you need to get a good WiFi reception for both devices. I had to buy a new router just to put it on the same Chromecast's room, because the WiFi reception there was awful before. So I set up the router as an access-point (which is wired-connected to my main-router) with the same network settings (network name, password, but different channel to avoid interference), and boom: WiFi signal has boosted for the entire apartment. That's how I solved the WiFi poor signal here, allowing to stream anything locally or from the web.
_MU said:
Both your phone and your Chromecast need to be connected to the same WiFi network, right? That means your WiFi router is responsible for getting the data from your phone (your phone upload the data) and redirecting it to your Chromecast (your Chromecast download the data). I think that's how it works. To make it happen without much buffering, you need to get a good WiFi reception for both devices. I had to buy a new router just to put it on the same Chromecast's room, because the WiFi reception there was awful before. So I set up the router as an access-point (which is wired-connected to my main-router) with the same network settings (network name, password, but different channel to avoid interference), and boom: WiFi signal has boosted for the entire apartment. That's how I solved the WiFi poor signal here, allowing to stream anything locally or from the web.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah both devices on same SSID.
Is there anyway to improve WiFi signal without forking for a new router (which is against my ISP's rules).
According to WiFi analyser my signal strength is fluctuating.
I have an old router knocking about, could I use that as an access point...but to be wired it would be directly next to main router, which is about 8 foot from Chromecast.
Valiceemo said:
Yeah both devices on same SSID.
Is there anyway to improve WiFi signal without forking for a new router (which is against my ISP's rules).
According to WiFi analyser my signal strength is fluctuating.
I have an old router knocking about, could I use that as an access point...but to be wired it would be directly next to main router, which is about 8 foot from Chromecast.
View attachment 3291872
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using WiFi Analyzer to measure my network reception on the same Chromecast's room, I've got between -50 and -40dBm of signal strenght.
I don't actually know many things you can do to boost your router's signal strenght, but using a second router as an access point or as a bridge to your main router (which your ISP could not detect). You might wanna try using, before, a wireless repeater to extend your WiFi range, but as long as I know, it cuts in half the internet speed received by the devices connected to that repeater (there's a technical explanation for that) and the speed stability isn't good enough, so I guess it's not the best idea for high quality video streaming. Maybe the best option is to give life back to your old router and set up it as an wired access point. I had to drill some holes to pass ~4 meters of ethernet cable throught the walls, but I can tell you it's worth it because it gives you the best results. Over here, Netflix buffers for 5 - 10 seconds and starts playing without interruptions on a 20Mbps download connection.
Looks like your Chromecast has an okay connection rate. It should work fine for Netflix and direct online streaming stuff, as they don't tend to go over 5 Mbps anyway (Netflix max is 5800 - if you have Netflix, try the streaming test clip and it will show on-screen what rate it's using).
The question is whether the bottleneck there is the wireless connection quality itself, or if it's influenced by the router/AP.
For locally casted stuff, depending on the cast method, you could be looking at 2x or even 3x the bitrate of your content having to be passed around your wireless network. If your router/AP can't handle that much traffic, it's going to give you a very poor experience.
Unfortunately there are many variables in diagnosing Chromecast speed/quality issues, and when you're streaming from other than online streaming services, there are even more variables in the mix.
_MU said:
Using WiFi Analyzer to measure my network reception on the same Chromecast's room, I've got between -50 and -40dBm of signal strenght.
I don't actually know many things you can do to boost your router's signal strenght, but using a second router as an access point or as a bridge to your main router (which your ISP could not detect). You might wanna try using, before, a wireless repeater to extend your WiFi range, but as long as I know, it cuts in half the internet speed received by the devices connected to that repeater (there's a technical explanation for that) and the speed stability isn't good enough, so I guess it's not the best idea for high quality video streaming. Maybe the best option is to give life back to your old router and set up it as an wired access point. I had to drill some holes to pass ~4 meters of ethernet cable throught the walls, but I can tell you it's worth it because it gives you the best results. Over here, Netflix buffers for 5 - 10 seconds and starts playing without interruptions on a 20Mbps download connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do I use an old router as a bridge or access point?
Turn off DHCP, set the LAN address to a static IP in your LAN, set gateway to LAN IP of primary router, connect an ethernet cable from LAN (*NOT* WAN) port to LAN port on primary router. Done.
bhiga said:
Turn off DHCP, set the LAN address to a static IP in your LAN, set gateway to LAN IP of primary router, connect an ethernet cable from LAN (*NOT* WAN) port to LAN port on primary router. Done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To some people, helpful, maybe.....
Others, not so much.
Or was it a deliberate attempt at being 'clever'?
Valiceemo said:
To some people, helpful, maybe.....
Others, not so much.
Or was it a deliberate attempt at being 'clever'?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't understand your comment.
You asked how to use an old router as an access point, that's how to use one as just an access point. Since the router (usually) bridges the LAN with the wireless, you're connecting its AP to your normal LAN.
The LAN IP and gateway are necessary otherwise wireless clients on the AP-only router will have that device as the gateway and WAN traffic will go nowhere as the router will try to pass it out the disconnected WAN port.
OK. Thanks.
But the description you have given isn't exactly 'noob' friendly.
I consider myself techy, but I'm not up on networking, having never done it.
Having to run a cable from primary to secondary router is a problem due to a full length glass door in the path.
Will setting the second router as a wireless access point give any benefit and / or disadvantages?
Valiceemo said:
OK. Thanks.
But the description you have given isn't exactly 'noob' friendly.
I consider myself techy, but I'm not up on networking, having never done it.
Having to run a cable from primary to secondary router is a problem due to a full length glass door in the path.
Will setting the second router as a wireless access point give any benefit and / or disadvantages?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are all standard wireless router settings, but each router brand/model has a different configuration interface.
The AP-only router should also be configured with a *different* SSID to avoid confusion with the primary router's WiFi as its not a true extender.
For something more plug and play, you should get a dedicated wireless extender which would need to be located in a place that has wireless coverage.
There is "flat Cat5" cable made to be run along moulding or the edge of carpet that might work, just keep in mind it's more fragile than regular twisted pair.
Alternatively you can use a MoCA (multimedia over coax) or PowerLine network bridge between the two routers instead of a hard cable. However, those types of connections will be limited in speed by wiring configuration and other factors. Should be adequate for Chromecast stuff though.
The is also HPNA which is network over phone line, but that is very limited bandwidth.
I have a Netgear XAV PowerLine network bridge connected to my router already so I added a bridge with built in WiFi extender (XAVN2001) on the other end to extend my WiFi reception.
bhiga said:
Those are all standard wireless router settings, but each router brand/model has a different configuration interface.
The AP-only router should also be configured with a *different* SSID to avoid confusion with the primary router's WiFi as its not a true extender.
For something more plug and play, you should get a dedicated wireless extender which would need to be located in a place that has wireless coverage.
There is "flat Cat5" cable made to be run along moulding or the edge of carpet that might work, just keep in mind it's more fragile than regular twisted pair.
Alternatively you can use a MoCA (multimedia over coax) or PowerLine network bridge between the two routers instead of a hard cable. However, those types of connections will be limited in speed by wiring configuration and other factors. Should be adequate for Chromecast stuff though.
The is also HPNA which is network over phone line, but that is very limited bandwidth.
I have a Netgear XAV PowerLine network bridge connected to my router already so I added a bridge with built in WiFi extender (XAVN2001) on the other end to extend my WiFi reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the advice .
I have the free sky wireless booster, but in honesty it makes no difference. Depending on placement or actually has a negative effect.
Is it possible to use an old router as a wireless booster / AP?
Meaning no trailing CAT5 etc and just as a means to have Ethernet ports near the TV for bluray player, Xbox etc.
And is it worth it.... Or will the speeds be slower?
And we'll it improve the WiFi signal at that point in the house?
Valiceemo said:
Is it possible to use an old router as a wireless booster / AP?
Meaning no trailing CAT5 etc and just as a means to have Ethernet ports near the TV for bluray player, Xbox etc.
And is it worth it.... Or will the speeds be slower?
And we'll it improve the WiFi signal at that point in the house?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on your router. In many cases it requires loading custom firmware on it, as most routers aren't designed to be wireless extenders or have WDS mode.
Any standalone repeater (ie, not wired in some manner to the primary router like my previous example) would need to be in reasonable wireless range, otherwise while it would increase coverage, it would be with poor throughput.
What manufacturer and model is your primary router? That would give us a better starting point for a recommendation.
Related
Hello.
Since XDA is the only forum I'm loyal to I decided to ask you guys.
I've get my broadband directly from ethernet ports integrated in my walls, and all those ports are connected to a switch. The problem is that I've got a wifi router that I'd like to use so I can connect my laptop and my phone to the network, which works fine if I connect it to one of the ports in my walls, but I also have a XBox 360 connected to one of these ports. And since I always stream music and video from my laptop to my XBox this gives me a problem.
I've temporarily solved this by setting up the router right beside my XBox and hooking the XBox to the router, and it works fine, but I can't connect to the wifi if I leave my livingroom.
Also tried to connect the router inbetween the switch and the cables that goes to the wall ports, but this was totally useless because then I only had acceptable wifi connection in my hallway and my kitchen.
So my question is this, is there anyway to have the router connected to one of these ethernet ports, my computer connected to the router and the XBox connected to another ethernet port and get them to be able to communicate?
EDIT: Disabled DHCP on the router as I've found in a guide, but that was only possible to do on the LAN part of the router, no such setting on the wireless page, so still the same problem.
Sounds a bit compilcated I guess, but I think it should be possible to use this router as some kind of extender for the already existing network.
Regards
Izaac
Tell me, how large is your living room again? -____-
Jk, alright, from my point of view, just place the router at the farthest point between those three gadgets, and buy a wifi extender for the other two. That thing just a couple of bucks anyway. Problem solved. No need for another router.
What is your switch currently connected to for internet access?
If you have it hooked to a modem, then it is probably a 1 port router/modem since you don't have problems drawing an ip on your other items.
You are on the right track. Turning off DHCP is correct. There is no dhcp on the wireless portion so don't look for it. Then you want to set your wireless router with a static ip on your lan side so you can get into it if you need(use something out of the normal range like xxx.xxx.xxx.200). Make sure the static IP is part of your LAN subnet. Those two things turn your wireless router into a switch/wireless access point. From here on out forget about the WAN or Internet port on the router. Use only the LAN ports.
You can now use this wifi router anywhere you want. Place it where you get the best wireless signal.
Wire things up this way wherever you place it:
Connect wall ethernet port to one of the LAN ports. Then connect any other devices needing internet access to the other LAN ports.(Computer, XBOX, whatever...)
Then connect wirelessly with your wireless device.
If you need to modify the router settings, you can browse to xxx.xxx.xxx.200 ( or whatever you set the router static lan ip to) from your computer .
Any devices that need DHCP will draw the address from further upstream from the modem/router.
I live in a two floor appartment with the router on the second floor, most of the building is made of concrete, my router is on the second floor, and i have excellent reception all over the place.
- How long is your cable (from the router to the wall 1 meter? 5? Make it as short as possible)
- Are you using 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz? The most common frequency is 2.4, so if your neighbours are using 2.4, it might disrupt your connection from time to time, so try to change the channel.
- Move the router if your wireless phone or any wireless things are operating on 2.4 GHz nearby. They will disrupt the signal.
Oy..... I forgot to tell him to get Wi-Fi Analytics from the play store to check his signal and find the best channel to use.
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
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 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...
I recently got a Galaxy S5 and realized that it's one of devices allowed to cast its screen to Chromecast. I installed the lastest ChromeCast app on my rooted S5 running stock Android 4.4.2 and as expected the Cast Screen option on the Chromecast app was available. My Chromecast dongle is running firmware 19084 and both the S5 and the Chromecast dongle are connected to the same SSID in my wireless network. My S5 is rooted, but my Chromecast dongle is not. I'm able to cast content from the Youtube App and other apps from the S5 and from other devices in my LAN without any issues. I just can't get the Screen Cast function of my S5 to work. I keep getting a toast notification that reads "Casting screen to (Chromecastname) has ended" every time I press the Cast Screen button.. After pressing Cast Screen in the S5 the screen of TV sometimes goes black, but during other attempts the Chromecast screen saver remains. I have factory reset and reconfigured the Chromecast dongle, uninstalled and re-installed the app, and cleared the data for the apps as suggested in other forums, but no dice. Given that my old rooted Galaxy S3 is not listed as a supported device, I decided to modify it and use it for testing. I installed #MirrowEnabler V6 (Experimental) to enable the Screen Cast option in the Chromecast App on the S3. The enabler activates the option, but when I try Screen Cast it fails with the same subject error. Is Screen Cast supported from rooted devices? I also have a couple Xposed Framework modules installed, can one of these be causing the problem? What Am I missing?
I have the same problem I'm trying to cast from an LG g2and I have the exact same sympton hope the one you described.
I'm running Android 4.4.2 also my device is rooted but the chromecast is not.
tamanaco said:
I'm able to cast content from the Youtube App and other apps from the S5 and from other devices in my LAN without any issues. I just can't get the Screen Cast function of my S5 to work. I keep getting a toast notification that reads "Casting screen to (Chromecastname) has ended" every time I press the Cast Screen button.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those symptoms can be caused by poor WiFi reception on the Chromecast. I get the same on my CCs that have weak signal.
"Optimized" streaming services/applications like YouTube, can compensate for a slow connection by switching to a lower-bandwidth version of the stream. Screen-casting, however, runs at a high rate, and if your Chromecast's connection can't maintain that rate, you'll get black screens, frozen playback, image breakup, drops back to the backdrop/wallpaper, and even temporary Chromecast disconnect.
speed4cast can help you measure the connection speed, so you can try different things like using an HDMI extender (recommended), other HDMI ports, reorienting/repositioning your router, or using a 2.4GHz WiFi extender/repeater.
bhiga said:
speed4cast can help you measure the connection speed, so you can try different things like using an HDMI extender (recommended), other HDMI ports, reorienting/repositioning your router, or using a 2.4GHz WiFi extender/repeater.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for pointing me to that Chromecast speed measuring tool... I'm about to install it on my SGS5 to test. In terms of performance, what are the recommended speed ranges for Download and Upload for "optimal" Screen-casting from a mobile device connected to the same wireless LAN as the Chromecast? My Chromescast is very close to my Netgear N900 router, but it's connected to a HDMI port on the back of the TV.
My CC that works well for screen casting is reporting 8 Mbps down, 4 Mbps up.
Another CC that's working fairly well for screen casing is reporting 7 Mbps down, 2 Mbps up.
My CC that does what you describes and pretty much can't screen cast except for a few stills is reporting 1.75 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.
Today it seems to be screen casting without dropping off, but it's choppy and blocky at times. In the past I've had it do what you describe, but I think my repeater wasn't online then. I'd try disabling my repeater but it's in a difficult-to-access location.
bhiga said:
My CC that works well for screen casting is reporting 8 Mbps down, 4 Mbps up.
Another CC that's working fairly well for screen casing is reporting 7 Mbps down, 2 Mbps up.
My CC that does what you describes and pretty much can't screen cast except for a few stills is reporting 1.75 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.
Today it seems to be screen casting without dropping off, but it's choppy and blocky at times. In the past I've had it do what you describe, but I think my repeater wasn't online then. I'd try disabling my repeater but it's in a difficult-to-access location.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now I think I get it... maybe? When I cast the screen from a mobile device from the LAN the casting still depends on the download/upload speeds of my Internet connection to/from the CC. Just like regular casting from say... youtube. Even while the screen cast content is coming from mobile device connected to the LAN to a Chromecast dongle connected to the same LAN... the screen cast content is also routed via the Internet? Am I making the right assumption here?
tamanaco said:
Now I think I get it... maybe? When I cast the screen from a mobile device from the LAN the casting still depends on the download/upload speeds of my Internet connection to/from the CC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The data isn't routed through the Internet, but the quality of wireless connection between your Chromecast and other devices like your router is critical. I'm not sure if it's different in other scenarios but with my S5 and Chromecast both connected to the same router the data does seem to go through the router, rather than WiFi Direct like Miracast.
bhiga said:
The data isn't routed through the Internet, but the quality of wireless connection between your Chromecast and other devices like your router is critical. I'm not sure if it's different in other scenarios but with my S5 and Chromecast both connected to the same router the data does seem to go through the router, rather than WiFi Direct like Miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the quality of the connections and the performance of my wireless LAN is good. The speed4cast tools appears to measure "Internet" connection speed... not WiFi connection speed. It appears to measure the speed performance from either the Android mobile device and the CC or the CC and the Internet. The performance when I stream HD media to/from all my other wireless devices is fine. I made sure to turn off all the other wireless devices when I was testing the CC with speed4cast and when I attempt to cast the screen of my SGS5. My LAN wireless speed is more than adequate. Copying files from my WiFi connected laptop to my wired attached NAS averages 25-35MB/s. The upload speed to the Internet is low... about 1MB, but my down speed is about 10MB. My SGS5 works fine with all other devices on my LAN while connected to the 5,0GHz side of my router. I even tried connecting the SGS5 to the 2.4GHz side of the router where the CC is also connected, but this made no difference. My wireless connected laptop, Vudu Box and Samsung Smart TV play HD streams from the Internet without any issues. I can also stream HD (1080i) YouTube videos from the SGS5 or laptop to the CC without a glitch. If the SGS5 Screen Cast media stream or control protocol(s) aren't being routed through the Internet then something else has to be at play here because the only bottleneck I can identify in my network is the 1MB Internet upload speed.
tamanaco said:
I believe the quality of the connections and the performance of my wireless LAN is good. The speed4cast tools appears to measure "Internet" connection speed... not WiFi connection speed. It appears to measure the speed performance from either the Android mobile device and the CC or the CC and the Internet. The performance when I stream HD media to/from all my other wireless devices is fine. I made sure to turn off all the other wireless devices when I was testing the CC with speed4cast and when I attempt to cast the screen of my SGS5. My LAN wireless speed is more than adequate. Copying files from my WiFi connected laptop to my wired attached NAS averages 25-35MB/s. The upload speed to the Internet is low... about 1MB, but my down speed is about 10MB. My SGS5 works fine with all other devices on my LAN while connected to the 5,0GHz side of my router. I even tried connecting the SGS5 to the 2.4GHz side of the router where the CC is also connected, but this made no difference. My wireless connected laptop, Vudu Box and Samsung Smart TV play HD streams from the Internet without any issues. I can also stream HD (1080i) YouTube videos from the SGS5 or laptop to the CC without a glitch. If the SGS5 Screen Cast media stream or control protocol(s) aren't being routed through the Internet then something else has to be at play here because the only bottleneck I can identify in my network is the 1MB Internet upload speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, speed4cast measures the speed between Chromecast and the Internet, but you cannot measure the Internet connection speed independently from the wireless connection on Chromecast, because the Internet traffic is flowing through the wireless connection.
So, if the reported upload/download speed is anything LESS than your Internet connection speed, then the Wireless connection* is slowing things down and the reported Internet connection speed is really your wireless connection speed.
For example, I have 50 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. If I do an Internet speed test on a computer, I see 40+ Mbps down speed.
Yet, my Chromecast is only 8 Mbps down?
If I do the same test on my phone connected at 2.4 GHz I get much better results.
So, the wireless connection between the router and my Chromecast is limiting its transfer speed.
* if your wireless AP is not your router or there are other network segments between the Internet connection and the AP, they may be causing the slowdown instead of the WiFi connection. Also, if your router/AP is slow, the wireless devices may be connected at a high rate, but transfer to/from will never reach the maximum because the router/AP is slowing things down.
Checking the wireless speeds on your other devices doesn't mean anything because those other devices are not where your Chromecast. The closest you can get is maybe to put your phone/tablet as where Chromecast is, which is usually right up against the back of the TV. You're almost guaranteed to notice the speed will drop significantly.
As I mentioned earlier, tests with dedicated streaming video services like YouTube, Hulu, etc will not give you an idea of your wireless transfer speed unless they provide visual feedback for the connection quality.
They are designed to transparently handle a wide range of connection speeds, unlike screen casting which essentially says "I need this much bandwidth, or it's not going to work correctly."
If you have Netflix, you can try their speed test video.
This article talks about it. Note that on my Chromecasts with optimal wireless, I get up to 5300 kbps which appears to be the max.
On suboptimal wireless I get far less.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/netflix-streaming-test/
Given your other devices have good WiFi performance, at least we can rule out your router slowing things down.
Your phone may be able to send data to the AP very quickly, but if Chromecast cannot receive that data fast enough because it has a poor wireless connection, then that doesn't help.
The data flow for screen casting is this:
Phone/Tablet <--A--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
Segment A is great, but segment B is what is suspect. Only hard numbers will tell.
speed4cast measures
Internet <--C--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
And you've already said your Internet speed is more than adequate (it should be unless you're on public/hotel connection, dialup, ISDN or repeating another WiFi connection).
B is the common part, and eliminating C, speed4cast will give us a measurement of B.
So run speed4cast on your Chromecast and tell us what it says on the screen.
If it confirms that your Chromecast has a good bandwidth connection, then it's something else in play. But in most cases interference from the TV makes Chromecast have less than optimal wireless speeds, and that's why you see some people complaining about streaming quality, because the streaming server is downgrading the bitrate (and hence quality) to compensate.
Screen casting doesn't do that, so if your Chromecast's wireless connection can't sustain the required speed you'll get blockiness, low framerate, jumps, or disconnection.
bhiga said:
Yes, speed4cast measures the speed between Chromecast and the Internet, but you cannot measure the Internet connection speed independently from the wireless connection on Chromecast, because the Internet traffic is flowing through the wireless connection.
So, if the reported upload/download speed is anything LESS than your Internet connection speed, then the Wireless connection* is slowing things down and the reported Internet connection speed is really your wireless connection speed.
For example, I have 50 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. If I do an Internet speed test on a computer, I see 40+ Mbps down speed.
Yet, my Chromecast is only 8 Mbps down?
If I do the same test on my phone connected at 2.4 GHz I get much better results.
So, the wireless connection between the router and my Chromecast is limiting its transfer speed.
* if your wireless AP is not your router or there are other network segments between the Internet connection and the AP, they may be causing the slowdown instead of the WiFi connection. Also, if your router/AP is slow, the wireless devices may be connected at a high rate, but transfer to/from will never reach the maximum because the router/AP is slowing things down.
Checking the wireless speeds on your other devices doesn't mean anything because those other devices are not where your Chromecast. The closest you can get is maybe to put your phone/tablet as where Chromecast is, which is usually right up against the back of the TV. You're almost guaranteed to notice the speed will drop significantly.
As I mentioned earlier, tests with dedicated streaming video services like YouTube, Hulu, etc will not give you an idea of your wireless transfer speed unless they provide visual feedback for the connection quality.
They are designed to transparently handle a wide range of connection speeds, unlike screen casting which essentially says "I need this much bandwidth, or it's not going to work correctly."
If you have Netflix, you can try their speed test video.
This article talks about it. Note that on my Chromecasts with optimal wireless, I get up to 5300 kbps which appears to be the max.
On suboptimal wireless I get far less.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/netflix-streaming-test/
Given your other devices have good WiFi performance, at least we can rule out your router slowing things down.
Your phone may be able to send data to the AP very quickly, but if Chromecast cannot receive that data fast enough because it has a poor wireless connection, then that doesn't help.
The data flow for screen casting is this:
Phone/Tablet <--A--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
Segment A is great, but segment B is what is suspect. Only hard numbers will tell.
speed4cast measures
Internet <--C--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
And you've already said your Internet speed is more than adequate (it should be unless you're on public/hotel connection, dialup, ISDN or repeating another WiFi connection).
B is the common part, and eliminating C, speed4cast will give us a measurement of B.
So run speed4cast on your Chromecast and tell us what it says on the screen.
If it confirms that your Chromecast has a good bandwidth connection, then it's something else in play. But in most cases interference from the TV makes Chromecast have less than optimal wireless speeds, and that's why you see some people complaining about streaming quality, because the streaming server is downgrading the bitrate (and hence quality) to compensate.
Screen casting doesn't do that, so if your Chromecast's wireless connection can't sustain the required speed you'll get blockiness, low framerate, jumps, or disconnection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could be wrong, but I still believe that "something" is being routed (uploaded) to the Internet and down to the CC. I guess I was not clear before, but the up/down speeds that I posted (1MB up -10MB down) were the numbers that the speed4cast tool reported from the CC. That's the reason I suspected the up link to the Internet was causing the problem in the first place as those numbers are the same numbers I get when I run Internet speed test from my laptop and from any mobile devices connected via WiFi. Intel PROSet also reports excellent signal quality (300.0 Mbps) when I put my laptop next to the CC. If I put my old SGS3 right next to the CC behind the TV... I can stream HD video using UPNP/DLNA media server and client in both directions while connected to the wireless network via the same AP of the router. I get no blockiness, low framerate, jumps or disconnection when streaming to/from my SGS5 to my SGS3. So, the wireless connection in segment B is fine (router <--B-- > CC). If there was a WiFi connectivity issue in this specific segment then I would experience the blockiness, low framerate, jumps and disconnection when streaming HD video to the CC using the Youtube app from my SGS5. There are no other network segments only one Router with 4 Gig Ports connected to devices that I turn off along with all the other devices that are connected via WiFi to avoid any conflicts/interference during my test.
Ah okay.
I don't think there's communication beyond downloading whatever bits are required for screen casting (the app itself).
And if your other devices are reporting the same up speed then your CC doesn't sound like it's being hampered by the wireless connection itself.
What carrier is your S5? Mine is AT&T and works well.
Is your native screen mirroring enabled? (Mine is)
In some cases it can enable/disable things that help or hurt the Chromecast mirroring.
Screen Casting now works with the new Chromecast App (v1.9.7) on my Nexus 7 running Lollipop 5.0.1. The N7 used to give me the same casting has ended error with prior versions of the app. But... it works fine until you want to disconnect from the casting session. I can not disconnect or try exiting the the app without hanging the N7. Oh well... This function is not mission critical for me anyway.
I still get the casting has ended error from my SGS5 and SGS3 using the same version of the app on KitKat 4.4.2. I guess now I can say with a high degree of certainty that the issue is not with my LAN setup or WiFi performance. There's still something else at play. I few days ago I noticed that the latest version of Speed4Cast (1.02) did not work with any of my devices. Once I updated Google Play Services to version 6.5.99 Speed4Cast started working again on all my devices. I think some authentication needs to happen between the casting device and some Google server... when this connection/authentication fails or is flaky there are issues casting the screen from the device.