I took the plunge and cut the cable cord which will be official on
Tuesday when they remove equipment and do the initial downgrade to
internet only. My intent is to add an OTA antenna but I want to avoid
running new cable and tap into the current cables used by the provider.
I understand I can use a diplexer to unsure proper reception, though
gathering info, one set up indicates using two diplexers whereas the OTA
signal and cable signal are entering with the single cable exiting to
the other diplexer's single input then out the dual exits. Since the
original cable uses one entrance to my home, I assumed I can simply use
one diplexer (OTA and Cable in) where the single exit would then
continue on the one run into my home's original set up for all TVs.
Anyone with experience can confirm this set up and/or help me determine
the proper set up needed to accomplish my goal?
I don't know what a diplexer is or why you need one, but what I used to
have was a cable box in the bedroom** , and cables I installed mystelf
to all the other rooms (String one: attic, bathroom, office/bedroom.
String two: living room, basement workshop, laundry room, kitchen.)
When I got rid of cable, and used antenna only I put in a VCR in place
of the cable box and when they went digital, I put in a DVDR in parallel
with the VCR. I used to use just a 6 foot wire for an antenna, but
when I wanted to also get the stations 45 or 50 miles away, I put a
full-size antenna in the attic with an antenna amp.
What probably relates to you is that I can only go two steps without
putting in a signal amplifer. (This is unrelated to the antenna amp.)
Otherwise the signal isn't strong enough to give a picture. I know
because I added one tv at a time and could tell when I had too many
splitters. This might be different for you since I'm using analog
TVs, but I wouldn't count on it. When you find out, let us know.
So for string one one amp is in the closet, even before the signal gets
to the attic. And for string two, the amp is after the living room on
the basement floor. I can't remember if it is before or after the
workshop tv, but it's before the laundry room and kitchen.
The amps have been running for over 30 years with no maintenance. I
forget the brand. It's a name brand for signal amps, but it's too dusty
down there to go look. They have a coaxial input, and one has one
coaxial output, the other has two.
** (and one in the basement iirc, but that's irrelevant now.)
Depending on who did the wiring and how much they were willing to pay,
you might have home-runs to each of your tvs. You still may need an
additional amplifier, but then you could get just one, with the right
number of outputs. You can tell by looking where the cable box is/was.
On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 8:59:38 PM UTC-4, SBH wrote:
I think there is a big problem with what you're doing, one that
probably makes it illegal. As I understand it, you're proposing
to join an antenna with an active cable television line. That
potentially makes your antenna a transmitter, sending the cable
signal into the air. The cable company spends a lot of time and
money shielding everything to make sure their signals don't radiate.
There probably is a legal and sound way of doing it, but I doubt
the typical, cheap components will do it.
Also, have you tried to see if the local channels are still
there even after you terminate service? It's not unusual for
the local channels to still be there anyway. In which case,
you wouldn't need the outside antenna. And if you do what you're
proposing, I would think it could potentially interfere with
whatever signals the cable company does still have there.
I can assure you it's not illegal. The provider will apply a filter to
stop channel frequency. The task of a provider is to feed the home then
the task of the customer is to use that feed for the amount of devices
they have. I have every right to provide my own antenna and use the
current cables. There are no signals radiating through the air or
otherwise. Cable doesn't work that way.
As I said, I don't know what a diplexer is, but I assumed he was going
to dicsonnect the cable and only use the wires installed in his house.
I'm glad you added this paragraph. No, I didnt assume it. He said he
"cut the cable cord".
Of those who subscribe.
If they are a subscriber. You said you cut the cable cord.
Is trader right about you and you're all wet?
Or was I right about your plans but you're going out of your way not to
say that to Trader? If I were right, you could have answered him in
one line, but instead you go on about filters and tasks of provider etc.
We're not going to have another difficult, obstinate poster, are we? I
Cutting the cord is a figure of speech for ridding of cable TV. I'm not
actually "cutting" it. I'm surprised you haven't heard the term.
A diplexer is similar to a splitter except it allows the signal to go in
or out any input. It's main purpose is to allow two signal sources to
enter into one line as well as stabilize those signals to avoid them
counteracting with each other.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
"If you have a cable or satellite system, you might be able to use a
splitter to add TV to another room. Most modern systems are designed to
use a splitter in this way, but older systems make you run a separate
line to each TV from a central switch. Make sure you know if you have a
"splittable" system. "
How do older systems make one run a separate line to each TV? Why
can't they use splitters and signal amps like I do?
Does it have to do with the remote control in each room?
the web site correctly says that a diplexer can be used to combine signals
onto one cable IF the signals are on different frequencies. This is true.
the web site also says CATV and off the air are different frequencies. THI
S IS WRONG.!!!!! CATV and OTA shre the same frequeny ranges. If you tr
y to use a diplexer to combine an off air antenna with the CATV system, the
signals will interfere with each other because they share the same frequen
you got good advice.... to run a new seperate cable from the CATV feed to y
our cable modem and use the old house wiring for the antenna as you like.
Just do not try to combine the two systems.
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:48:25 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
als onto one cable IF the signals are on different frequencies. This is tr
THIS IS WRONG.!!!!! CATV and OTA shre the same frequeny ranges. If yo
u try to use a diplexer to combine an off air antenna with the CATV system,
the signals will interfere with each other because they share the same fre
to your cable modem and use the old house wiring for the antenna as you lik
e. Just do not try to combine the two systems.
channel numbers no longer have anything to do with the frequencies.
OTA uses 50 to about 700 MHz with gaps for other services.
Cable uses 50 to 800 or 900 MHz.
The channel numbers that you set on your box or TV no longer have a direct
relationship to the frequency the channel is actually on.
This is especially true with digital cable channel, where there may be 12 o
r more "channels" on one frequency.
Channel 900 on the cable system could be mapped to any frequency that the c
able compnay feels like using.
There is no real channel 900. Most such actually use channels in the 100
to 135 range. Some of these are in the same frequency range as UHF from
BTW, there's also the 95-99 (cable) range, which is just above 6 (in the
band used for FM broadcast). IIRC, putting cable channels in frequency
order, you get:
2-6, 95-99, 14-22, 7-13, 23-94, 100+
The last 2 ranges overlap UHF broadcast.
On 06/23/2015 03:20 PM, email@example.com wrote:
That's an important IF. You may need a filter. That seems to be getting
a lot more complicated than running another cable.
Also, things like diplexers, splitters, etc... add signal loss,
something you won't want with an antenna.
Channels 2-13 use the same frequencies for broadcast and cable (and
digital doesn't change that). UHF broadcast is in the same frequency
range as some of the higher cable channels (IIRC about 65 - 125).
BTW, Cable 22 is next to broadcast 7, a fact I found useful when getting
cable on an old TV.
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 4:50:07 PM UTC-4, SBH wrote:
Really, you have a cite for that? That you can hook an
antenna up to a cable line?
The provider will apply a filter to
Baloney. They did that 50 years ago. Typically today
to cut off your service, they do it remotely, via the box.
And here, even if they do, the local channels are still there.
You clearly are in way over your head. Sure, you have the right
to use your own antenna and the current cable. What you don't have
the right to do is connect the cable to an antenna and become a
transmitter. There is a big difference. Capiche?
Then you may want to call my provider and tell them that. After all, it
is they who provided me with the info and told me the tech will confirm
where he will apply the filter and ensure a proper set up along with my
The local cable company here is going to get around that now. They are
going totally digital and even if you have a digital TV you will still have
to have their special small box on every tv now. Free for a year, then a
bout a $ 3 charge per TV per month.
The modem for cable internet was free up to about a year ago. They started
chargeing $ 4 now they are going to $8 per month. You can buy your own, so
that is what I did at the first charge. If I can buy one new for $ 20 they
must be making a killing on them at $ 8 per month.
I did cut them off the TV and went with Direct TV for now. May switch back
when the 2 year contract with Direct is up. Probably not as for now Direct
has much more that we watch. If my wife was able to work the computer stuff
beter, I would just goto Hulu or Netflix, but I have to keep it simple for
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.