I was initially excited about this product, but being a network engineer focused on the video/media technologies, I don't agree with the way the JAP products were architected. This could have been a true multicast solution which would have been awesome. From my understanding, each of the transmitters comes shipped with the same private IP address in the 192.168.x.x address space. Each of the receivers comes programmed to connect to that one IP address that all transmitters are assigned. They then rely on the switch to put each transmitter into an individual VLAN transmitter 1 = VLAN 10, Transmitter 2 = VLAN 20, Transmitter 3 = VLAN 30, etc. Transmitter 1 is attached to port 1 on the switch, transmitter 2 to port 2, etc. The receivers for a particular zone are attached to another port family room = port 10, theater - port 11, master bedroom = port 12, etc. If someone in the family room wants to watch the source attached to transmitter 2, some control system has to send a command to the switch to change port 10 to put it into VLAN 20. If they decide to change "channels" to the source attached to transmitter 3, the control system sends a command to the switch to change port 10 to put it into VLAN 30. If they had designed the system to be true multicast, each of the transmitters would be configured with an individual multicast address in the 224.x.x.x - 239.x.x.x space (for example 224.1.1.10 for transmitter 1, 224.1.1.20 for transmitter 2, etc.). Multicast was intended to be used on large scale networks of with potentially vast numbers of switches, but it works the same on one single switch. A receiver would be connected to the network with a 192.168.x.x (or whatever your addressing is) which it could get via DHCP from your router just like any PC that joins your home network. It would have intelligence built in to know what multicast streams were available. When the user in the family room wanted to see the source material attached to transmitter 3, they change the channel and the receiver sends a signal to the switch that it wants to join group 224.1.1.30. The switch sets the port that transmitter is attached to to be in the multicast group for that stream. I'm not sure why the people at JAP didn't go down this path. This is essentially how IPTV systems work and how the industry is moving. For instance, in the very near future cable providers everywhere will be offering IPTV service. Essentially they will provide you a set-top box to replace the traditional cable box. It will be a receiver like I am describing above. The cable provider will put each individual cable channel (and VoD movies, shows, content) onto a seperate multicast stream on a particular multicast address. HGTV on 224.1.1.200, TOON on 224.1.1.211, CNN on 224.1.1.222, ABC on 224.1.1.223, HBO1 on 224.2.2.400, SHO3 on 224.2.100.103, etc. Each of these channels gets blasted across the cable providers network from the core outwards. However, they each stream only propagates outward if there is a subscriber somewhere downstream requesting that channel. If you have 3 set-top boxes all set to HGTV, the cable provider switch port that connects to your house only sends the stream from HGTV (AKA 224.1.1.200) to your house. If the kids switch to TOON, their set-top box sends a signal out to "leave group 224.1.1.200" and "join group 224.1.1.211". If the person in the master bedroom wants to switch from HGTV to the source attached to the local transmitter 1, their set-top box would send a "leave group 224.1.1.200" and "join group 224.1.1.10". I think this utopian ease of setting up local sources and broadcast channels from service providers is only a few years away. Seems like JAP, could have architected their product on true multicast and been ahead of the curve. Just my humble opinion though.