Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.

In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.


Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...


http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.


... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions


See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.

In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.


Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...

http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions


See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.


Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up. Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service? Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 2/10/12 8:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up. Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service? Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.


Respectfully, Michael even though we wouldn't *want* to make a 170 foot
drop. it isn't unheard of. And the amplifiers are very capable of
handling it. Ind it is very location specific. Getting a decent signal
at a marginal location doesn't have any effect on the rest of the
system. There are attenuators and there are equalized attenuators that
will give a flat signal at the end of a 170 foot drop.

RG6 cable has a loss of around 5 db per 100 feet at 500 MHz. Let's give
you 10 db at 170 feet, worst case. When I worked in the industry, I
plugged (or designed in) in a number of equalized attenuators. It only
affected a single drop, or some times a few. You could have a specific
amp running about +10db, and with the equalized attenuator, hit the
house around 0, flat.

While some might think that it is bad design, ask the system owners
whether they would want to put in another pole, perhaps with a
distribution amp, or simply use a 20 dollar attenuator.

The world is not perfect, and my job in the catv world included just
about every part, from strand mapping to system layout to in the field
work. We needed a balance between perfect and affordable. But the only
time there might be an issue was if the system was over-amped, then
there could be problems with proof of performance certification. We
never had an issue with that.


Bottom line is, a 170 foot drop is perfectly capable of having a nice
flat swept signal - and it should, unless the system design itself was
bad. Done properly, any issues will be mechanical rather than
electrical. But nowadays they have messengered cable, so it's even less
likely.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

But the only time there might be an issue was if the system was
over-amped, then there could be problems with proof of performance
certification.

I saw a case of that twenty years ago in Key West, Florida. I suspect the
authorities had to look the other way because affordable technology to do it
better didn't exist. The Florida Keys were served out of a headend that was
close enough to the mainland to get decent OTA signals. however, by the
time those Miami signals got to Key West, they were pretty bad. I have no
idea how many amps were used. (IIRC, local origination channels were OK.)

I think five amps is about the limit due to added noise and cross-mod.

"Sal"

In message , Sal writes

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

But the only time there might be an issue was if the system was
over-amped, then there could be problems with proof of performance
certification.

I saw a case of that twenty years ago in Key West, Florida. I suspect the
authorities had to look the other way because affordable technology to do it
better didn't exist. The Florida Keys were served out of a headend that was
close enough to the mainland to get decent OTA signals. however, by the
time those Miami signals got to Key West, they were pretty bad. I have no
idea how many amps were used. (IIRC, local origination channels were OK.)

I think five amps is about the limit due to added noise and cross-mod.

"Sal"

In practice, without serious and constant TLC, the length of cascades of
amplifiers is usually limited by the frequency response flatness (or
lack of it), and the ability to maintain it. I think that the maximum
I've been involved with was a cascade of about 20 normal trunk
amplifiers plus three or four distribution amps / line extenders on the
end. Thank heavens these days for optical.
--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Sal writes


snip

I think five amps is about the limit due to added noise and cross-mod.


In practice, without serious and constant TLC, the length of cascades of
amplifiers is usually limited by the frequency response flatness (or lack
of it), and the ability to maintain it. I think that the maximum I've been
involved with was a cascade of about 20 normal trunk amplifiers plus three
or four distribution amps / line extenders on the end. Thank heavens these
days for optical.

20! Wow! That would have to be some high-grade stuff. Thanks.

"Sal"

In message , Sal writes

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Sal writes


snip

I think five amps is about the limit due to added noise and cross-mod.


In practice, without serious and constant TLC, the length of cascades of
amplifiers is usually limited by the frequency response flatness (or lack
of it), and the ability to maintain it. I think that the maximum I've been
involved with was a cascade of about 20 normal trunk amplifiers plus three
or four distribution amps / line extenders on the end. Thank heavens these
days for optical.

20! Wow! That would have to be some high-grade stuff. Thanks.

I think the equipment was fairly typical of its type.
--
Ian

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:50:59 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.

And yet the asshole touts himself as knowledgeable in the field.

He is a ****ing joke, at best.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.

Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...
http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.


Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.


In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.

Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.


... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?


Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.


Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.


Read more carefully. I said TV doesn't matter to us, it is not about cost.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:51:08 -0800, Joerg
wrote:


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.

More than a bit full of yourself.

Engineers follow standards because standards are developed by engineers
to give us all uniformity where it is needed.

You claiming it is due to your special care for us is disingenuous.

You discounting standards in other areas is casual lameness, and it
pretty much defines you,and sullies all other claimed accomplishments.