Talk:Multimedia over Coax Alliance

Changes reverted

this page is out of date my changes were fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond8255 (talk • contribs)

Your changes included bolding the name of the company that you have been spamming for. Please try again, after reading a few things about wikipedia editing. I'll put a welcome template on your talk page so you'll have some pointers for what to read. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

This page is an advertisement to MoCA or is it not true that HPNA/HCNA 3.1 also achieves the stated features while providing for a larger range between stations and higher throughput than MoCA (89.180.106.8 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

(Untitled)

This pages talks about everything except about what Moca is and does?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.134.63.137 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on between an IP and several bots, a user called "MocaOfficial", and some authors. I believe the IP user has some good arguments, though some of their edits are vandalism-based and none of the allegations are true. While AT&T does NOT provide direct end-to-end COAX delivery, they are in the membership group of MoCA. However, the wikipedia article page for MoCA is not the proper place to debate whether AT&T should be admitted to MoCA. If you want to flame AT&T, find a blog somewhere. Personally, I believe they should be denied entry and allowed only to HPNA, but I don't make the rules for MoCA any more than the IP user does.

So here is what I propose:

• SuddenLink IP User: STOP vandalizing the page. STOP posting untrue items on the article.
• Moderators: If the IP user keeps it up, ban their edit privileges, simple.
• Bots: Not that you can process my proposal, but give it a rest. The constant edits and undos between you are adding to the bandwidth and server load.
• "MocaOfficial": If you are going to charge someone with slander, you had better be able to back it up with legal fact and case precedent. In addition, the IP user was not slandering MoCA, so you have no legal standing. Only AT&T would be able to sue such a person for slander, since the derogatory comments were directed at them. Having criminal and civil justice background in the U.S. (where the user and AT&T are located), I know for a fact that false accusations of slander are not tolerated well by the justice system, and that the burden of proof is pretty high. AT&T would have to PROVE that the statements by IP User are false. Lay off the legal jabs and the re-edits yourself. You are not helping the situation. Let the moderators do their job. That is what they are here for.

$0.02. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.90 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

75.108.179.61 has posted untrue and volatile statement against AT&T and MoCA and clearly has an agenda against one or both. Repeated removals by multiple users only get reposted by 75.108.179.61

From a post by 75.108.179.61 from 10:30, 18 March 2012:

"SCREW G**T&T (Also known professionally as AT&T)! THEY CANNOT CALL THEMSELVES MoCA BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT F***ING CABLE!!! SLOW-A** PIECE OF SH**!"

Clearly vandalism. Clearly lacking in credibility.

I'll be pursuing through the warning structure for an administrator intervention.

When using the term "slander", it was used as a description that 75.108.179.61 is posting untruths that reflect negatively on MoCA & AT&T. As in: "Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone's reputation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_(disambiguation) This is not a court of law, it is wikipedia. Reference to slander is for wikipedia. Again, 75.108.179.61 clearly has an agenda against one or both. MoCAofficial (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marketing in intro?

> Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) is an industry standard alliance developing technology for the connected home.

"for the connected home" sounds like marketing buzzwords to me. What is "the connected home"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.16.60 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

diagram

It might help people if there were a diagram showing how a MOCA unit fits into a home/business wifi / lan set up RobSVA (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

My plan over the next few days is to expand and generally rewrite/reorganize this article so it complies more with WP:MTAU. While I'm at it I will:

• Update and expand the frequency bandplan to include MoCA 2.5, DOCSIS overlap, etc.
• Recreate questionable free use timeline diagram, possibly through prose in a history section but probably in a simple table
• Per comment above, find a freely-licensed image (or create one) showing a typical MoCA architecture

I'll write back here when my changes are complete.

~SpK 22:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)