On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:02:22 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa

wrote:



On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:48:58 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa



wrote:







If you have cable internet (say, Charter) you should be able to split the cable and get basic channels tuned through your HD TV.







And what about a non-HD TV? Do you still need the antenna for one of



them?



Who on God's Green Earth would want anything that didn't have an HD tuner in it?


People who own one or more already and don't have as much money as you
do.

And people who have as much money but have large uninsured medical
expenses for someone they love or are responsible for.

First, I answered your question.

To quote Jesus, "We will always have the poor..."

To drag Jesus into this in the way you did, I think means you've reached
the second level of snottiness.

Sometimes you have to blow it!

That's for you to say about yourself. It's not for you to be dismissive
of people who don't have the money you do.

I paid $170 for a new 32" and $20 for a used at Goodwill!

A used HD TV for 20 dollars at Goodwill???? If so, you were lucky.
Most people don't have time to go to Goodwill over and over until they
find a good deal like this. Some have 2 jobs. If not, it's a
pointless remark.

micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:02:22 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa

wrote:



On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:48:58 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa



wrote:







If you have cable internet (say, Charter) you should be able to split the cable and get basic channels tuned through your HD TV.







And what about a non-HD TV? Do you still need the antenna for one of



them?



Who on God's Green Earth would want anything that didn't have an HD tuner in it?


People who own one or more already and don't have as much money as you
do.

And people who have as much money but have large uninsured medical
expenses for someone they love or are responsible for.

First, I answered your question.

To quote Jesus, "We will always have the poor..."

To drag Jesus into this in the way you did, I think means you've reached
the second level of snottiness.

Sometimes you have to blow it!

That's for you to say about yourself. It's not for you to be dismissive
of people who don't have the money you do.

I paid $170 for a new 32" and $20 for a used at Goodwill!

A used HD TV for 20 dollars at Goodwill???? If so, you were lucky.
Most people don't have time to go to Goodwill over and over until they
find a good deal like this. Some have 2 jobs. If not, it's a
pointless remark.


I understand where you are coming from, My wife and I are both 73 and
this year are out of pocket drug charges is around $900.00 per month.
She was diagnosed with Parkinson and the med is $478.00 per month and
her diabetics med is $345.00 and then mine. Our Part D pays nothing for
her meds and no aid as long as you have Medicare. If you were like some
that did not try to pay there own way of course there is help. We have
had to cut way back and drop anything that is not necessary. I am still
working when I can but not on any company insurance since I am part time.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:16:19 -0400, wrote:


It's not that hard to run a second cable into the house.

Part of my house overhangs the house in the back, and it's brown
underneath, so some brown cable going up next to the brown downspout and
then through an easy to drill hole that goes into the closet and it's
barely noticeable.

Another cable went in through tthe aluminum basement window frame, in
the empty space below the channel. So it didnt' interfere with the
operation of the window. For that cable, it's worth using plain cable
with no connector on the end yet, because it will go through a smaller
hole (small enough to fit in the empty space below the window channel) ,
and then to add t he F-connector to the end. They make screw-on
F-connectors though I've never gotten one to work. They also make
normal F-connectors of various designs and fairly cheap pliers to put
them on with. F-connector pliers are those which have a hexagon shaped
hole between the jaws when the jaws are closed. That's how a hexagonal
crimp is put on the round connector sleeve during attaching.

There are all kinds of "putty" or sealant to close the small space
remaining between the hole and the cable. I think just about anything
will work.

With the new digital cable (for TV and Internet) they run 100%
sheild, which you cannot crimp standard "F" connector to. You need
the Radial Quad Sheild Co-Ax connectors, which isntall with a
compression tool (Look up Zenith ZDS5061 for the tool)

$35 on Amazon. But I'm glad you warned me, and the other guy, in
advance.****

Also known as
"waterproof connectors"

But you have to use them even where it's dry? I gather the answer is
yes.

And do these also require the compression tool?***
http://www.amazon.com/PPC-Ex6xl-Rg-6.../ref=pd_cp_e_0

***The text doesnt' say... Well it doesn't say on the ad page, but in
the questions it pretty much says yes.

I ask because they are called "Snap and Seal" which makes them sound
like they go on easily, like Tupperware lids. Of coure the next two
words in their name is "Compression Connector" but, always hopeful, I'm
thinking maybe that means "serving in the role of a compresson
connector".

****"Wait a second, Alice" as Ralph Kramden might say. I was using
examples from when I got cable, but I was only giving advice on running
his antenna cable into the house. Standards for that haven't changed.

But I'm glad you warned us because I might get cable again someday.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:54:06 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 04/19/2014 08:46 AM, wrote:
I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my cable TV and using an outside antenna and the cable Internet for television. The question I have is when I put up an antenna can i just plug it into the coax cable coming into the house? I have my cable internet coming in on the same cable. Is this an issue or will it work.



no

you cannot splice your antenna into your coax for your internet


The question is a bit ambiguous. He CAN use the existing cable in the
house for his antenna, but it MUST be disconnected from the cable
TV/internet connection. If he disconnects the cable at the first
splitter, connecting only the internet to the incoming cable, he CAN
connect the antennae to the remaining installed cable. Just needs the
proper balun to adapt the antenna to the cable if the antenna is the
common 300 ohm twinlead instead of the 50/75 ohm co-ax

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 22:05:20 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:16:19 -0400, wrote:


It's not that hard to run a second cable into the house.

Part of my house overhangs the house in the back, and it's brown
underneath, so some brown cable going up next to the brown downspout and
then through an easy to drill hole that goes into the closet and it's
barely noticeable.

Another cable went in through tthe aluminum basement window frame, in
the empty space below the channel. So it didnt' interfere with the
operation of the window. For that cable, it's worth using plain cable
with no connector on the end yet, because it will go through a smaller
hole (small enough to fit in the empty space below the window channel) ,
and then to add t he F-connector to the end. They make screw-on
F-connectors though I've never gotten one to work. They also make
normal F-connectors of various designs and fairly cheap pliers to put
them on with. F-connector pliers are those which have a hexagon shaped
hole between the jaws when the jaws are closed. That's how a hexagonal
crimp is put on the round connector sleeve during attaching.

There are all kinds of "putty" or sealant to close the small space
remaining between the hole and the cable. I think just about anything
will work.

With the new digital cable (for TV and Internet) they run 100%
sheild, which you cannot crimp standard "F" connector to. You need
the Radial Quad Sheild Co-Ax connectors, which isntall with a
compression tool (Look up Zenith ZDS5061 for the tool)

$35 on Amazon. But I'm glad you warned me, and the other guy, in
advance.****

Also known as
"waterproof connectors"

But you have to use them even where it's dry? I gather the answer is
yes.

And do these also require the compression tool?***
http://www.amazon.com/PPC-Ex6xl-Rg-6.../ref=pd_cp_e_0

Those are the connectors - and yes, they need the "compression tool"

***The text doesnt' say... Well it doesn't say on the ad page, but in
the questions it pretty much says yes.

I ask because they are called "Snap and Seal" which makes them sound
like they go on easily, like Tupperware lids. Of coure the next two
words in their name is "Compression Connector" but, always hopeful, I'm
thinking maybe that means "serving in the role of a compresson
connector".

****"Wait a second, Alice" as Ralph Kramden might say. I was using
examples from when I got cable, but I was only giving advice on running
his antenna cable into the house. Standards for that haven't changed.

But I'm glad you warned us because I might get cable again someday.

On 04/19/2014 10:02 PM, JAS wrote:
I understand where you are coming from, My wife and I are both 73 and
this year are out of pocket drug charges is around $900.00 per month.
She was diagnosed with Parkinson and the med is $478.00 per month and
her diabetics med is $345.00 and then mine. Our Part D pays nothing for
her meds and no aid as long as you have Medicare. If you were like some
that did not try to pay there own way of course there is help. We have
had to cut way back and drop anything that is not necessary. I am still
working when I can but not on any company insurance since I am part time.

Would you like to cure that diabetes?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyKvCkxp2o

"JAS" wrote in message


I understand where you are coming from, My wife and I are
both 73 and this year are out of pocket drug charges is
around $900.00 per month. She was diagnosed with
Parkinson and the med is $478.00 per month and her
diabetics med is $345.00 and then mine. Our Part D pays
nothing for her meds and no aid as long as you have
Medicare. If you were like some that did not try to pay
there own way of course there is help. We have had to cut
way back and drop anything that is not necessary. I am
still working when I can but not on any company insurance
since I am part time.

If you haven't all ready done so, you might want to investigate the Medicare
Advantage plans available in your area, especially their drug formulary and
charges for same. IME, they are often far cheaper than with straight
Medicare and no supplemental insurance needed.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 04/19/2014 04:24 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

The answer is NO, he must run a cable from the outside antenna to each TV.

Unexplained "NO" answers are usually wrong.

It is possible with the proper filters, although you'd have to know the
frequencies involved (don't forget the cable internet uses separate
downstream and upstream channels).

However, it'd be easier to put in a separate cable for the modem.

[SPAM DELETED]

On 04/19/2014 06:16 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With the new digital cable (for TV and Internet) they run 100%
sheild, which you cannot crimp a standard "F" connector to. You need
the Radial Quad Sheild Co-Ax connectors, which isntall with a
compression tool (Look up Zenith ZDS5061 for the tool) Also known as
"waterproof connectors"

Quad Shield cable does need different connectors. There should be no
need to use QS except for very long runs or in unusually noisy environments.

On 04/19/2014 06:51 PM, Pthirus Pubis wrote:

[snip]

If you combine an antenna feed with a cable TV feed, you will create
signal problems that will be detected by the cable company.
The cable companies remedy may be to cut the offending subscriber off.

And that setup may not work because of interference.

You would need a suitable filter so the OTA channels aren't entering the
cable from the cable company. Depending on the frequencies involved,
this could be an expensive filter, and subject to change (when the cable
company changes the channels your cable internet uses).

It's still be easier to use a separate cable for the internet.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"The Church says that the world is flat but I know that it is round for
I have seen its shadow on the moon and I have more faith in a shadow
than in the Church." -- Ferdinand Magellan

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:07:49 -0500, hah
wrote:

On 04/19/2014 06:16 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With the new digital cable (for TV and Internet) they run 100%
sheild, which you cannot crimp a standard "F" connector to. You need
the Radial Quad Sheild Co-Ax connectors, which isntall with a
compression tool (Look up Zenith ZDS5061 for the tool) Also known as
"waterproof connectors"

Quad Shield cable does need different connectors. There should be no
need to use QS except for very long runs or in unusually noisy environments.

If you ever want to use it for digital TV or interner, you will want
QS. Up here the cable company rips out anything else and replaces it
with QS cable.

On 04/19/2014 08:03 PM, Adam Kubias wrote:

[snip]

I'm satisfied with a mast too. A shingled attic will take out about 30%
of reception. Why do anything to a maximum of 70% efficiency?

If the signal is strong enough, 70% will give you a picture EXACTLY like
100% will. An attic installation may be preferable in other ways.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"The Church says that the world is flat but I know that it is round for
I have seen its shadow on the moon and I have more faith in a shadow
than in the Church." -- Ferdinand Magellan

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:02:48 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/19/2014 08:03 PM, Adam Kubias wrote:

[snip]

I'm satisfied with a mast too. A shingled attic will take out about 30%
of reception. Why do anything to a maximum of 70% efficiency?

If the signal is strong enough, 70% will give you a picture EXACTLY like
100% will. An attic installation may be preferable in other ways.

Come to think of it, that's the advantage of digital, if the signal is
strong enough. Since the value can only be 0 or 1, whichever it's
closer to (or whatever other standard is used) it will be interpreted as
a 0 or 1. I'm sure it's smart enough that, if the signal is at 70%,
it doesn't just call everything below 50% zero and everything between 50
and 70 one. Instead it would note the maximum signal strength of 70,
and call everything 35 or above 1, and everything below 35 zero. (or
use a method parallel to whatever method or standard is used with
stronger signals. )

On Monday, April 21, 2014 2:22:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

I'm sure it's smart enough that, if the signal is at 70%,
it doesn't just call everything below 50% zero and everything between 50

and 70 one. Instead it would note the maximum signal strength of 70,

and call everything 35 or above 1, and everything below 35 zero. (or

use a method parallel to whatever method or standard is used with

stronger signals. )

Hey, don't strain yourself! The digital information is delivered by a carrier frequency...if that carrier is within limits all the digital information will be intact.

cable happens to use the same frequencies as commercial airliners do, which is why cable operators sometimes replace entire neighborhoods of main cable lines.

they survey areas looking for stray signals.....

dont mix cable and tv antennas, run a seperate cable!

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...
On Monday, April 21, 2014 2:22:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

I'm sure it's smart enough that, if the signal is at 70%,
it doesn't just call everything below 50% zero and everything between 50

and 70 one. Instead it would note the maximum signal strength of 70,

and call everything 35 or above 1, and everything below 35 zero. (or

use a method parallel to whatever method or standard is used with

stronger signals. )

Hey, don't strain yourself! The digital information is delivered by a
carrier frequency...if that carrier is within limits all the digital
information will be intact.

That is right. Analog signals get snowy if the signal level is weak. The
digital signal strength does not mater as to quality of the picture. You
either have enough signal for the receiver to work or you get a blank
screen. Under some fading conditions you may see the picture look like
square blocks and frozen up. That is where the signal totally goes away.
It does not mater if you have 100% 0r 10 % signal, if it is enough for the
circuits to get the information, the quality will be the same.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 04/20/2014 08:48 PM, wrote:

[snip]

If you ever want to use it for digital TV or interner, you will want
QS. Up here the cable company rips out anything else and replaces it
with QS cable.


I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not).
I installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a
little RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.

BTW, HD isn't noticably better on a small screen.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Nobody ever told us you had to be religious." [Nancy Grambo, whose son
Buzz Grambo was kicked out of the BSA Southern Maryland Troop 427, for
his lack of religious belief]

On 04/21/2014 09:45 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

That is right. Analog signals get snowy if the signal level is weak. The
digital signal strength does not mater as to quality of the picture. You
either have enough signal for the receiver to work or you get a blank
screen. Under some fading conditions you may see the picture look like
square blocks and frozen up. That is where the signal totally goes away.
It does not mater if you have 100% 0r 10 % signal, if it is enough for the
circuits to get the information, the quality will be the same.

IIRC, 70% is enough signal you should get a perfect picture (as good as
100% signal).

10% is low and since these things are inconsistent will likely go too
low at times. You'll get a blocky picture and bup-bup-bup audio
(something I've seen WAY too much).

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
[deleted]

Do you realize this is making YOU look like a spammer?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Nobody ever told us you had to be religious." [Nancy Grambo, whose son
Buzz Grambo was kicked out of the BSA Southern Maryland Troop 427, for
his lack of religious belief]

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not). I
installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a little
RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.


I doubt that QS is much if any beter than the foil with the braid over it.
Installing some of the rg59 (the type with just a braid and no foil) is not
a very good idea. It can do two things, let the cable signal out so that it
interfears with other services and lets other services interfear with your
cable signal.

At one house I lived in I was getting some complaints from a house about 200
feet away that I was causing problems with a HBO channel. I was using a
transmitter about 220 mhz and it was only 10 watts. It did not bother my
cable. The cable man came out and found the home owner had used some single
shielded cable and had to replace it.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:19:53 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/20/2014 08:48 PM, wrote:

[snip]

If you ever want to use it for digital TV or interner, you will want
QS. Up here the cable company rips out anything else and replaces it
with QS cable.


I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not).
I installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a
little RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.

BTW, HD isn't noticably better on a small screen.
I had signal problems - pixellation on DTV and slow internet. They
replaced the last of the 60%? sheild with QS and all the problems
dissapeared. The problems showed up when they switched all the TV
channels to digital and boosted my internet speed. They said it's like
trying to run gigabit ethernet on cat 3 cable. Sometimes it almost
works- - - -.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:12:33 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not). I
installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a little
RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.


I doubt that QS is much if any beter than the foil with the braid over it.
Installing some of the rg59 (the type with just a braid and no foil) is not
a very good idea. It can do two things, let the cable signal out so that it
interfears with other services and lets other services interfear with your
cable signal.

At one house I lived in I was getting some complaints from a house about 200
feet away that I was causing problems with a HBO channel. I was using a
transmitter about 220 mhz and it was only 10 watts. It did not bother my
cable. The cable man came out and found the home owner had used some single
shielded cable and had to replace it.

foil and braid is what they installed. The installer called it QS
cable. I had just called it full-sheild previously.
I'll go look at the cable and see exactly what it says on it --- Some
if FT4 and some is FT6.The FT6 is QS

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:31:51 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:19:53 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/20/2014 08:48 PM, wrote:

[snip]

If you ever want to use it for digital TV or interner, you will want
QS. Up here the cable company rips out anything else and replaces it
with QS cable.


I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not).
I installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a
little RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.

BTW, HD isn't noticably better on a small screen.
I had signal problems - pixellation on DTV and slow internet. They
replaced the last of the 60%? sheild with QS and all the problems
dissapeared. The problems showed up when they switched all the TV
channels to digital and boosted my internet speed. They said it's like
trying to run gigabit ethernet on cat 3 cable. Sometimes it almost
works- - - -.


Just checked the cable at the office - Rogers Business Internet - FT6
QS all the way. There had been a satelite TV system in the building
before we moved in, and that was all FT6 QS cabling as well..

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:40:46 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:12:33 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the
company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not). I
installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a little
RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.

Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using
it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.


I doubt that QS is much if any beter than the foil with the braid over it.
Installing some of the rg59 (the type with just a braid and no foil) is not
a very good idea. It can do two things, let the cable signal out so that it
interfears with other services and lets other services interfear with your
cable signal.

At one house I lived in I was getting some complaints from a house about 200
feet away that I was causing problems with a HBO channel. I was using a
transmitter about 220 mhz and it was only 10 watts. It did not bother my
cable. The cable man came out and found the home owner had used some single
shielded cable and had to replace it.

foil and braid is what they installed. The installer called it QS
cable. I had just called it full-sheild previously.
I'll go look at the cable and see exactly what it says on it --- Some
if FT4 and some is FT6.The FT6 is QS
It's FT6 to the first splitter and to the cable modem. FT4 to the HD
cable box and the DVR

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:54:06 AM UTC-4, philo* wrote:
On 04/19/2014 08:46 AM, wrote:

I am seriously thinking of getting rid of my cable TV and using an outside antenna and the cable Internet for television. The question I have is when I put up an antenna can i just plug it into the coax cable coming into the house? I have my cable internet coming in on the same cable. Is this an issue or will it work.







You will have to separate the incoming cable for internet from your antenna.. You can disconnect it a convenient outside point and then run a new wire from the cable company's wire directly to your cable modem. Then you can use your existing in-house wiring to run over the air tv by connecting your outside antenna to the now free entry point. Make sure all your tv's have the newer digital tuners in them as analog tv over the air is gone. Over the air is now all digital. Some cable providers were/are still delivering analog tv which worked with older tv's.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 3:48:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:40:46 -0400, wrote:



On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:12:33 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"

wrote:





"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message

...



I have digital TV and cable internet (15Mbps). The outdoor cable the

company installed in about 2001 may be QS (although I think it is not). I

installed all the indoor cable, NONE of which is QS. There's even a little

RG59 (very short runs). It all works fine.



Your cable company may use QS because it's what they have (they're using

it for outdoor runs too). That doesn't make it any better.





I doubt that QS is much if any beter than the foil with the braid over it.

Installing some of the rg59 (the type with just a braid and no foil) is not

a very good idea. It can do two things, let the cable signal out so that it

interfears with other services and lets other services interfear with your

cable signal.



At one house I lived in I was getting some complaints from a house about 200

feet away that I was causing problems with a HBO channel. I was using a

transmitter about 220 mhz and it was only 10 watts. It did not bother my

cable. The cable man came out and found the home owner had used some single

shielded cable and had to replace it.



foil and braid is what they installed. The installer called it QS

cable. I had just called it full-sheild previously.

I'll go look at the cable and see exactly what it says on it --- Some

if FT4 and some is FT6.The FT6 is QS

It's FT6 to the first splitter and to the cable modem. FT4 to the HD

cable box and the DVR

For what it's worth my daughter got only internet from time warner. But we put a splitter on it and she got a random selection of tv channels as well when we hooked a tv to it. Probably depends on the diligence of your installer to put the filters on the line. Which you can often just remove later anyway.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 3:26:16 PM UTC-5, jamesgang wrote:

For what it's worth my daughter got only internet from time warner. But we put a splitter on it and she got a random selection of tv channels as well when we hooked a tv to it. Probably depends on the diligence of your installer to put the filters on the line. Which you can often just remove later anyway.

Also what I have been suggesting!

wrote in message
...
foil and braid is what they installed. The installer called it QS
cable. I had just called it full-sheild previously.
I'll go look at the cable and see exactly what it says on it --- Some
if FT4 and some is FT6.The FT6 is QS

There are several types of the rg6 cable. The QS has two braids and 2 foil
coverages. The tri shield has a foil, braid and foil for the outer layers.
Then some just has a foil and a braid over it.
I have not looked but there is probably some around with just a braid like
other cables, but I doubt it is.
Usually you need differant type of connectors for each kind if it is done
correctly.

There is not much if any differance in the loss of the QS vers the single
foil/braid for quality cables. I doubt there is that much differance in the
shielding either.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:16:05 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
foil and braid is what they installed. The installer called it QS
cable. I had just called it full-sheild previously.
I'll go look at the cable and see exactly what it says on it --- Some
if FT4 and some is FT6.The FT6 is QS

There are several types of the rg6 cable. The QS has two braids and 2 foil
coverages. The tri shield has a foil, braid and foil for the outer layers.

Like I said - FT4 and FT6
Then some just has a foil and a braid over it.
I have not looked but there is probably some around with just a braid like
other cables, but I doubt it is.
Usually you need differant type of connectors for each kind if it is done
correctly.

There is not much if any differance in the loss of the QS vers the single
foil/braid for quality cables. I doubt there is that much differance in the
shielding either.

Don Phillipson wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

We stopped the cable few months ago because realized we had been
paying more each year for
500+ channels --of which we watched maybe 9-10!

We bought an indoor antenna, hung it up high, brought in all the OTA
channels it would get, but
they were AWFUL. Could not get the one single PBS channel we did
want. Returned antenna,

Consider an outdoor antenna (if you can.) Before doing so, on line
antenna vendors usually offer maps showing which transmitters ought
to give a good signal at your address. Your main choice for outdoor
antennas is between (1) Small (folded) antenna, less than 1 ft.
square. (2) Traditional UHF antenna, 3 ft to 6 ft. with multiple
reflectors. (3) "Mattress" antenna with multiple reflectors (for
which several Youtube videos offer to show us how to build our own.)

All these connect via coax directly to your TV receiver (not to your
PC.)

Buy an outdoor antenna and stick it in your attic. If you can fit it there it
will work just as well.

micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:18:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:47:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

When I first** installed my large attic antenna, it got all the
Baltimore stations and most DC stations. 40 miles from here. No
rabbit ears had ever gotten more than one or two DC stations, plus
the Baltimore stations. So you're wrong.

When I lived in Clinton Md, south of DC an attic antenna got me all
of the DC stations (from northwest DC) and a fairly good picture from
Baltimore.
I went up on a 15' mast on the roof with a rotor so I could swing
around south and I could get Richmond fairly well (enough to see a
blacked out Redskin game), 100 miles away. DC and Baltimore were
crystal clear.

I'm not saying that a tower or mast isn't a good thing, but the
previous poster went far beyond saying that a tower was better than
the attic. He said regarding an antenna: "Indoor; even in the attic;
is a waste of money", and that's not true. " Just go for a proper
tower unless you live in a city." so I think he was recommending a
self-standing tower, wasn't even satisfied with a mast.

If you just wanted DC stations you could run a wire to the center
screw of an outlet plate.

Sounds good. Do I need more parts, or just a wire from there to the
center hole of the co-ax connector?

He didn't say anything about a co-ax connector. He said and outlet plate screw.
I do have some doubt.

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/21/2014 09:45 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

That is right. Analog signals get snowy if the signal level is
weak. The digital signal strength does not mater as to quality of the
picture.
You either have enough signal for the receiver to work or you get a blank
screen. Under some fading conditions you may see the picture look
like square blocks and frozen up. That is where the signal totally goes
away. It does not mater if you have 100% 0r 10 % signal, if it is enough
for the circuits to get the information, the quality will be the same.

IIRC, 70% is enough signal you should get a perfect picture (as good
as 100% signal).

70% of what??

Buy an outdoor antenna and stick it in your attic. If you can fit it there it

will work just as well.

It MIGHT work, but if the attic is trusses just forget it, while you might squeeze it in it will be impossible to rotate.

plus rain or snow may drop signal strength. and during weather emergencies is one time you really need tv.

antennas are far better outdoors........

a roof covered with snow or rain acts as a blanket that can kill signals

On 04/21/2014 11:34 PM, Bob F wrote:

[snip]

IIRC, 70% is enough signal you should get a perfect picture (as good
as 100% signal).

70% of what??



Originally, my response was about 70% signal with an attic antenna, as
compared to 100% with the antenna on a tower.

Some other posters seemed to be talking about a signal strength
indicator on a TV or tuner box.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"I went to a planet where the dominant lifeform had no bilateral
symmetry, and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt."

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:33:11 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:18:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:47:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

When I first** installed my large attic antenna, it got all the
Baltimore stations and most DC stations. 40 miles from here. No
rabbit ears had ever gotten more than one or two DC stations, plus
the Baltimore stations. So you're wrong.

When I lived in Clinton Md, south of DC an attic antenna got me all
of the DC stations (from northwest DC) and a fairly good picture from
Baltimore.
I went up on a 15' mast on the roof with a rotor so I could swing
around south and I could get Richmond fairly well (enough to see a
blacked out Redskin game), 100 miles away. DC and Baltimore were
crystal clear.

I'm not saying that a tower or mast isn't a good thing, but the
previous poster went far beyond saying that a tower was better than
the attic. He said regarding an antenna: "Indoor; even in the attic;
is a waste of money", and that's not true. " Just go for a proper
tower unless you live in a city." so I think he was recommending a
self-standing tower, wasn't even satisfied with a mast.

If you just wanted DC stations you could run a wire to the center
screw of an outlet plate.

Sounds good. Do I need more parts, or just a wire from there to the
center hole of the co-ax connector?

He didn't say anything about a co-ax connector.

True. That's why I mentioned it and its center hole.

He said and outlet plate screw.

Yes, which is at ground potential, but electronics is complicated and
maybe even the array of ground conductors in the average house somehow
makes a decent antenna**.

I do have some doubt.

Me too. But I've got nothing to lose by trying it, when I have time.

They used to advertise a lot, and sell, and I used to have a gizmo that
was flatlead at one end, and screwed the the antenna terminals of a tv,
and at the other end was a plastic box with a two prongs sticking out of
the far end, to be plugged into an outlet (receptacle). I took it apart
and there was a capacitor between one side of the flat lead and the
neutral prong. The other side of the flat lead was not connected to
anything. It worked as an antenna I guess, not great and certainly no
better than rabbit ears (or what I usually used which is just one wire
on one of the two tv screws.) The plastic box was 1/2" thick or so
and 6-sided but not 6 equal sides, so it looked futuristic. That was
most of its appeal to most people.

But if the neutral made a decent antenna, maybe the ground will too. No
capacitor needed according to gf? maybe that's the difference between
ground and neutral. :-) But I did ask about other parts.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 22:02:32 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote:

What are you going to use for internet service?
Usually they will end up charging almost as much for just internet as
they charge for internet and basic cable.

Last I checked, Comcast charged $12 for the basic local TV channels, or I
had to pay a $10 fee if all I wanted was internet. So, getting the local TV
stations was a no-brainer.

A few months ago Comcast switched to encrypted digital TV. I never watch
live TV, I record everything using TV tuners in my computer. Their new
encryption scheme was incompatible with my TV tuners, so I dropped the TV
service and switched to an antenna. Even with the No-TV fee, my bill went
down about $5/month.

You pay $5/month for Comcast internet, and that's your whole cost???

Plust the one-time-only $10 No-TV fee?

Did you have to buy a cable modem maybe?

I know you don't have TV anymore, and I don't think Comcast has
telephone.


The only thing I lost in the switch was Discovery channel. I just wait till
the shows come to Netflix (which I subscribe to already), or watch a show
on the Discovery web site if it's urgent.

Anthony Watson
www.watsondiy.com
www.mountainsoftware.com

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 00:10:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 22:05:20 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:16:19 -0400, wrote:


It's not that hard to run a second cable into the house.

Part of my house overhangs the house in the back, and it's brown
underneath, so some brown cable going up next to the brown downspout and
then through an easy to drill hole that goes into the closet and it's
barely noticeable.

Another cable went in through tthe aluminum basement window frame, in
the empty space below the channel. So it didnt' interfere with the
operation of the window. For that cable, it's worth using plain cable
with no connector on the end yet, because it will go through a smaller
hole (small enough to fit in the empty space below the window channel) ,
and then to add t he F-connector to the end. They make screw-on
F-connectors though I've never gotten one to work. They also make
normal F-connectors of various designs and fairly cheap pliers to put
them on with. F-connector pliers are those which have a hexagon shaped
hole between the jaws when the jaws are closed. That's how a hexagonal
crimp is put on the round connector sleeve during attaching.

There are all kinds of "putty" or sealant to close the small space
remaining between the hole and the cable. I think just about anything
will work.

With the new digital cable (for TV and Internet) they run 100%
sheild, which you cannot crimp standard "F" connector to. You need
the Radial Quad Sheild Co-Ax connectors, which isntall with a
compression tool (Look up Zenith ZDS5061 for the tool)

$35 on Amazon. But I'm glad you warned me, and the other guy, in
advance.****

Also known as
"waterproof connectors"

But you have to use them even where it's dry? I gather the answer is
yes.

And do these also require the compression tool?***
http://www.amazon.com/PPC-Ex6xl-Rg-6.../ref=pd_cp_e_0

Those are the connectors - and yes, they need the "compression tool"

Thanks.

"micky" wrote in message
...
True. That's why I mentioned it and its center hole.

He said and outlet plate screw.

Yes, which is at ground potential, but electronics is complicated and
maybe even the array of ground conductors in the average house somehow
makes a decent antenna**.


When dealing with RF there is not much of a real ground on a wire more than
a few feet long. Depending on the frequency for the length of wire, but
where the TV stations operate it only takes a few inches of wire to put you
above ground, so to speak. It will be a ground at direct current and low
frequencies such as 60 HZ.

"micky" wrote in message

$35 on Amazon. But I'm glad you warned me, and the other guy, in
advance.

If you really want to get some bang for your OTA buck, about $35 at Amazon
gets you one of these.

Mediasonic HW-150PVR HomeWorx ATSC Digital TV Converter Box with Media
Player and Recording PVR Function/HDMI Out

http://www.mediasonic.ca/product.php?id=1365123671

I've ordered one for every large screen TV in the house. It receives free
OTA HD TV broadcasts via a *good* HDTV antenna and allows you to store them
to any sort of USB drive (I've tried thumb drives, 500GB WD and 2 TB Seagate
external devices so far). The recordings are in HD as MKS files and I can
take the thumb drive out of the mediasonic unit, plug it into my Sony
BluRay's USB front port and play whatever I just recorded in very nice
looking 1080 resolution. I wish that the unit took the file names it
recorded from the EPG like the Panasonic DVR did (before the digital
conversion - afterwards nada). It instead records the channel name and
number along with the time and date, which is enough to distinguish
recorders.

In terms of bang for the buck and the number of problems solved for so
little, I think this may be the "Most Useful Purchase" of the year. I've
tried recording HD-TV to PCs and while it can be done, it's nowhere near as
convenient or cheap as using a PVR. The recordings are stunning -
particular compared to my old Panasonic and Polaroid DVRs which had a HQ
mode but nowhere near as sharp as the Mediasonic's HD recordings.

It's got an HDMI, component and composite outputsIt's got an EPG and timed
recording, too. Some people report issues with that which oddly seem to be
caused by local TV stations setting their time signal incorrectly, which the
Mediasonic depends on for timer recordings. Haven't found a way to tell it
to stop recording after an hour, but it might be possible - it's just not
obvious (on the Panny you just hit record again to add another 30 minutes of
recording time.

Now, when there's four different things on at the same time that I want to
record (it's happened!) I can just set each box to a different OTA channel
and have at it. Allegedly there's a FW upgrade that lets the unit decode
QAM, but I think I've decided that with Netflix, Amazon Prime and OTA in the
DC area, who the fu& needs Comcast CATV? I only subscribe to the basic
package which means local channels (fewer than the new box gets!!!), CSpan,
WGN and the local public access channels.

While there are clearly "settling in" issues with the firmware and the
hardware, I don't think I've ever seen an HDTV recorder for OTA broadcasts
for anywhere remotely as cheap as $40 and I've made enough manual one hour
records to different kinds of media that even if that's all it ever does and
the timer recordings never work, it's still worth the money. Plays all the
files from my other DVRs, too.

I'll post updates as I discover new features (or bugs) but so far, what a
great Easter gift to myself! My wife is not as impressed, I'm afraid,
because she's finally figured out how to use the current setup and fears
that will be changed.

--
Bobby G.

Micky,

A few months ago Comcast switched to encrypted digital TV. I never
watch live TV, I record everything using TV tuners in my computer.
Their new encryption scheme was incompatible with my TV tuners, so I
dropped the TV service and switched to an antenna. Even with the No-TV
fee, my bill went down about $5/month.

You pay $5/month for Comcast internet, and that's your whole cost???

No, my bill "went down" about $5 when I dropped the TV service. I still pay
about $67 a month for internet service.

Plus the one-time-only $10 No-TV fee?

The no-TV fee is monthly, not one time.

Basically, it was $12 a month to add TV service, or a $10 monthly fee if I
only wanted internet. I always opted for the TV service until they changed
to encrypted digital. That required new boxes that were incompatible with
my TV tuners. So, I now pay the $10 monthly fee, and use an antenna to get
the local TV channels.

Did you have to buy a cable modem maybe?

I purchased my own cable modem a few years ago to avoid the rental cost
every month. The monthly rental was only $5 or so, but if you plan to have
cable internet for more than a year or so, it's more cost effective to buy
your own modem.

I know you don't have TV anymore, and I don't
think Comcast has telephone.

Comcast does offer phone service, but I get phone service a lot cheaper by
going through 1-VOIP:

http://www.1-voip.com/residential-voip.php

Anthony Watson
www.watsondiy.com
www.mountainsoftware.com

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:58:06 AM UTC-7, HerHusband wrote:
Micky,


[...]
Comcast does offer phone service, but I get phone service a lot cheaper by

going through 1-VOIP:



http://www.1-voip.com/residential-voip.php

Was very interested to read this reference. Went to the Web site, but did not get enough information on blocking these ****ing anonymous robot calls that I get all day.

2. How long have you had these 1-VOIP folks as phone service?

3. Any problems? What kind?

4. Do you have any personal/pecuniary interest in this co?

5. Where is their central office?

6. Are they a public co? I.E. stockholders?
would love to extirpate any vestige of Verizon from my system, but for the moment, after discontinuing cable, I have kept phone and Internet. Would like to get rid of both, but not by trading them in for something worse.

Thanks for any help.

HB


[...]