Tv coaxial

[Robbo3]

if you mean by 'diplexer' a two-way resistive splitter, then yes, if you want to feed two boxes from one downlead you will need one. And if satellite is involved it really needs to be decently screened too, like one of these (you can only have one satellite receiver per downlead however, apparently).

But you shouldn't need anything with filters in it at the bottom (although it should also work it will cost a bit more and may not give any benefit). I think the wall plates that have lots of different, labelled sockets on them are intended for separate cables, rather than one with all the aerial signals multiplexed down it. You can't just connect the single downlead to all the positions on the back of such a plate without causing issues.

I wish I hadn't mentioned a diplexer now as it seemed to have muddied the waters.
However this 3 way outlet says - single cable input with triplexer.
Not so neat but this one & also a six way version may suffice. It would be helpful if they showed a picture of the reverse.

 

[flying haggis]

the first link is a triplexer, ie it unravels the three different frequencies that were combined with a similiar plate at the other end of the cable, in the loft perhaps. the second link is a splitter that provides four outputs from one input and is not suitable for sat signals

 

[Robbo3]

the first link is a triplexer, ie it unravels the three different frequencies that were combined with a similiar plate at the other end of the cable, in the loft perhaps. the second link is a splitter that provides four outputs from one input and is not suitable for sat signals

I'm lost. The first states single cable input & the second a TV & Satellite Splitter.

 

[flying haggis]

the first one does indeed have one cable in, that is because you use the same device at the other end of the cable to combine the signals from sat, tv aerial, and fm aerial then feed them down one cable to the plate shown that splits them back out. it is sometimes easier to just run one cable rather than the three you would need to send the uncombined signals from aerial/dish. but to use a sky ie a sky+ box for recording you really need to have two cables from dish to sky box. the second link is just a means of splitting one feed into four but cannot be used for sat signals despite it saying so. every sat box needs a dedicated feed or feeds from dish to box. you can get something called a multi switch to feed sat signals around the house but they dont come cheap. sat signals cannot be split like tv aerial signals as the receiver sends control signals to the lnb (the bit on the end of the arm on the dish) so if two receivers are sending different control signals which one does the lnb choose to obey? it doesnt know.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I wouldn't bother with coax or ethernet as standard anymore.
Wifi and online video / audio are taking over. Landlines are a thing of the past for most of the population, and the backup for loss of wired internet is everyone's mobile phones.
Give it a few more years and optical connections right to the house will make phone sockets redundant too.
Broadcast services of all kinds will be accessed by fewer and fewer people.
Technology changes a lot in the space of a decade.

I wholly agree with this. For most domestic needs the only reason for a landline is that it usually comes with the broadband connection. 5G may mean that the need for a wired connection disappears entirely.

The only reason for a continued hardwired connection is that most people (me included) are not wholly tech savvy, needs change only slowly, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I also suspect that for the next couple of years 5G will be premium priced, and hardwired prices may reduce to maximise residual income from an already installed network.

For businesses the pressure to stay abreast of evolving technologies is quite different

 

[Robbo3]

the first one does indeed have one cable in, that is because you use the same device at the other end of the cable to combine the signals from sat, tv aerial, and fm aerial then feed them down one cable to the plate shown that splits them back out. it is sometimes easier to just run one cable rather than the three you would need to send the uncombined signals from aerial/dish. but to use a sky ie a sky+ box for recording you really need to have two cables from dish to sky box. the second link is just a means of splitting one feed into four but cannot be used for sat signals despite it saying so. every sat box needs a dedicated feed or feeds from dish to box. you can get something called a multi switch to feed sat signals around the house but they dont come cheap. sat signals cannot be split like tv aerial signals as the receiver sends control signals to the lnb (the bit on the end of the arm on the dish) so if two receivers are sending different control signals which one does the lnb choose to obey? it doesnt know.

Very nice explanation. Thanks.
I don't have satellite but will file your comments away for reference.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I wouldn't bother with coax or ethernet as standard anymore.
Wifi and online video / audio are taking over. Landlines are a thing of the past for most of the population, and the backup for loss of wired internet is everyone's mobile phones.
Give it a few more years and optical connections right to the house will make phone sockets redundant too.
Broadcast services of all kinds will be accessed by fewer and fewer people.
Technology changes a lot in the space of a decade.

I wholly agree with this. For most domestic needs the only reason for a landline is that it usually comes with the broadband connection. 5G may mean that the need for a wired connection disappears entirely.

The only reason for a continued hardwired connection is that most people (me included) are not wholly tech savvy, needs change only slowly, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I also suspect that for the next couple of years 5G will be premium priced, and hardwired prices may reduce to maximise residual income from an already installed network.

For businesses the pressure to stay abreast of evolving technologies is quite different

It's a dangerous business trying to predict the future. I recall an old Grand Designs where the whole house had cable trays of wired ethernet everywhere. Before WiFi came along. It was probably only Cat5 at best too.

I wonder where we are going. Broadcast services are in decline, except good old radio picked up a lot of listeners in isolation. 5G is much hyped, but to see the promised high speeds you need to be quite close to a mast. And it not to be raining.

IMHO, for most media, but especially broadcast TV, it is the content and not the technology that's the problem !

 

[joncooper27]

Hi I have just built an annexe for my Father in law I have CAT 6 in every room and Coax in every room apart from his kitchen! He now wants a tv in there can I use the CAT6 instead of Coax and convert RJ45 to Coax connection. Would this work for his old TV or is there another better way to do it using the CAT6

 

[Old.bodger]

Yes it can be done, I have done it in the past over sensible distances. I’m sure that there IS signal loss but I doubt it will cause you problems and the fittings to do it are cheap so worth a try!

As it was a long time ago I just looked it up! You have to go to bnc/ rj35 balun and find a converter for your tv coax plugs to the bnc connector. A messy bodge but better than having to install a load more cable!

 

[HamsterJam]

Yes it can be done, I have done it in the past over sensible distances. I’m sure that there IS signal loss but I doubt it will cause you problems and the fittings to do it are cheap so worth a try!

As it was a long time ago I just looked it up! You have to go to bnc/ rj35 balun and find a converter for your tv coax plugs to the bnc connector. A messy bodge but better than having to install a load more cable!

Hi I have just built an annexe for my Father in law I have CAT 6 in every room and Coax in every room apart from his kitchen! He now wants a tv in there can I use the CAT6 instead of Coax and convert RJ45 to Coax connection. Would this work for his old TV or is there another better way to do it using the CAT6

UK Digital TV signals are broadcast between 470MHz and 700MHz. I’m not sure of the spec for CAT6 but suspect it will be pretty lossy at these frequencies.
CAT6 is also a ‘twisted pair’ which is a balanced system so as @Old.bodger says you need a couple of ‘baluns’ (balanced to unbalanced transformers) to adapt to/from an unbalanced coaxial system. Also check the frequency the baluns are rated for as these will be quite lossy too, especially if operated outside their specified frequency range.
However if you have a strong signal, you might get away with it especially over a short distance.

Adapting a TV coax connector (Belling-Lee) to BNC can be done using a short length of TV coax fitted with the appropriate connectors.

Having said all that, have you considered a small indoor antenna hidden on top of a kitchen cupboard or behind the TV set?

 

[DRC]

I would run a coax i have several in my house all terminated at a amplifier in the loft.

Don't run a coax and mains cable in the same trunking keep them some distance apart 100mm should do, more on a long run.

Pete

In basic comms strategy you can cross at right angles never parallel i.e. side by side.

 

[nickds1]

As some have mentioned, it depends on the application - every situation is different.

We did an eco self-build about 15 years ago. I ran trunking and put in CAT5e to the kids' bedrooms as I didn't want WiFi in their rooms - at the time there was a lot of discussion about possible risks to kids' brains from strong WiFi & mobile phone signals. WiFi at that time was a bit feeble and all the plasterboard in the house was foil-backed so tended to block WiFi pretty effectively anyway.

Nowadays WiFi is far better - I run a network of 4 ubiquiti nano access points - one on ground floor, two on second, one on third - each is wired at 1Gb/s and mobile devices and laptops get about 200-300Mb/s throughput, which is more than enough - we have GB fibre to the house, so that is real throughput. The only things now in wired connections are switches, PoE APs, printers and a PC in my office - I need at least one directly wired PC in case the WiFi has a problem! There's also some kit that needs wired connection, eg smart power strips, backup SANs etc.

Small but important point: CAT5e and CAT6 cabling has 4 sets of twisted pair cables in total. For gigabit (1000BASE-T) connections, all 4 pairs are used; for 100Mb and 10Mb connections, only 2 pairs are used. You can run UHF over a CAT5e or CAT6 cable with suitable baluns so long as you don't run anything else at the same time.

The key thing is that all the cabling is in conduits so is easy to replace as needs change. You can't "future proof" as noone can second guess what's coming, all you can do is make it a bit easier to upgrade in the future. Conduit is good.

One VERY GOOD REASON to have wired connections is if you use Power over Ethernet (PoE) to power devices thus obviating the need to have a mains wall-wart next to them as well... This is particularly useful for access points (APs).

With PoE you can use a single UPS to protect your house's network infrastructure, keeping the network termination, router, PoE switches and APs etc. all powered from one place in the case of a black- or brown-out.

 

[Spectric]

I am still using hardwired broadband and network switches because I find I get absolutely no issues and for me it is secure. For Tv I use freesat because our local terestial Tv transmitter was very weather dependant and also does not transmit a full range of channels so now using a hybrid Sky Q LNB and the 4K freesat box so I don't think the days of coax are over but the days of the old Tv aerials must be.