Increasing Cable TV signal strength

[Ian Jackson]

It shows that you have a 6 dB slope, and the high end is 1 dBmv below
the standard level. It also shows a lot of errors in the recovered
data. QAM is the digital TV signal. Unscrambled channels are referred
to as Clear QAM

Presumably 75.25MHz is an analogue signal? In the UK, at least while the
cable system has carried a mixture of analogues and digitals, the
digitals have been run 10dB below the analogues. If 75.25MHz had been
digital, it would be set at -5dBmV, so there would be a rising slope of
4dB, LF to HF.

In any case, if the 513MHz digital is -1dBmV, and other HF signals are
similar, that is more than sufficient for a digital set-top box. I would
think it should work reliably down to around -15dBmV. If I'm right,
whatever the problem is, it isn't being caused by a lack of signal
level.

 

[Joerg]

Sigh. You never back down, even when you are shown that you are
wrong.

Because I am not.

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/consumer/cons_alerts_cable.html

Quote "If its under 300 feet, its free to the consumer".

Yes, it is as simple as that. You are within 300ft and the cable company
must serve you. This is state-of-the-art. Now you'll probably declare
the whole State of Vermont to be wrong?

[...]

 

[[email protected]]

Because I am not.

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/consumer/cons_alerts_cable.html

Quote "If its under 300 feet, its free to the consumer".

Yes, it is as simple as that. You are within 300ft and the cable company
must serve you. This is state-of-the-art. Now you'll probably declare
the whole State of Vermont to be wrong?

The whole state? Na, there's probably three sane people left.

 

[Joerg]

The whole state? Na, there's probably three sane people left.

But it's everywhere. Here is an example from South Carolina about what
happens when a company wants to push through a sub-par 125ft and the
city insists state-of-the-art 300ft:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/techno...ed_franchise_without_cable_company_agreement/

They threatened to not renew the franchise. And this was six years ago.

 

[josephkk]

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users. Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.




Then why are you being such an ignorant prick about the issue when
you have no horse in the race? You sound more like Dimbulb every day.
I used to think highly of you, but no longer

Geez Michael, one stupid thread and you trash years of positive
experience?

Just the same, i didn't expect him to even think of pretending knowledge
where he was not well versed in the specific area under discussion.