I have cable light. In other words, the slowest of internet services you can get.
Several people told me years ago, I should be able to split it off to my TV's. Now, about 4 yrs later, I finally gave it a try, taking a TV downstairs & hooked it up to my internet cable. It works!
Reading about using a splitter, I get that if you split the line in two, you lose half your signal strength.
My question is: Say if the TV isn't on, and I'm using the internet. Do I still only get 1/2 the signal strength?
Any advice on how to hook up to 2 TV's plus my modem for internet would be appreciated.
Oh yeah, my cable company says it's not possible to hook up to the TV on the light services unless I pay additional. But, I know a TV will work, just don't know if I can hook up both!
Sounds like the installer got lazy and left out the notch filter on the drop. Run ONE 2-way splitter upstream from the cable modem, and then split out the TV leg for the TVs. Expect it to stop working at some point. Without a cable box, you will only be able to get whatever analog channels your cable system still carries. Most have cutovers to all-digital in the works. Odds are the basic tier has nothing you can't get with rabbit ears or roof antenna, other than maybe a radar feed and the local public access channel.
BTW, that is NOT the cheapest internet service- dial-up is. In most areas, entry level DSL from Ma Bell is cheaper than cable, if you can get it in your part of town.
Uh, he doesn't wanna TELL the company- he wants free TV. On a sloppily run cable system, where they don't supress the TV signal on the drop for internet-only customers, it can sometimes be possible, at least for ananlog channels.
Not necessarily. At my first splitter I have a output for internet and one for tv's. The tv run is then split multiple times for each room. However at the input to the cable modem I added a splitter for an adjacent tv. Works fine. I ran many internet speed tests with and without the splitter and there is no difference in internet speed or service. However YMMV depending on cable signal strength.
That's not exacty true. The digital signal to his interner modem either works or doesn't. But he's probably using the analog signal for tv and that can be effected by splitters.
The good news is that the number of tv's won't affect the internet speed. That's a digital signal and as long as it's working then the speed capability will be unchanged. And as long as you get a decent picture on all the tvs then the analog signal loss from the splitters is not a problem.
I'd say that's not exactly true too. What does "as long as it's working" mean?. If you do enough splitting, poor cabling practices etc, it would seem you could reduce the signal quality at the cable modem to the point that it is borderline. Meaning it still has connectivity but will be dropping a significant number of packets, with those packets having to then be resent under the direction of the software stack, significantly reducing performance.
As some others have pointed out, the preferred practice is the following. The cable company provides a single cable run into the building. You then use one two way splitter to break that into one cable run to the modem, another to serve the TV or TVs. If you have more than one TV, then you use another splitter or splitters to divide the TV line into however many cables you need. That gives the cable modem the max signal strength possible.
However, that cabling is not an absolute. As someone pointed out, in some cases, because of physical limitations, people have the line that's split out once for the cable modem split again and shared with a TV in the same room and it works fine. It depends on the signal strength provided by the cable company at the house, the cable type, length, splitters, etc. The good news is you can try it and find out if it works. It's also possible to read the signal strengths in both directions directly from the modem. Many, maybe all modems have an IP address that you can access that pulls up a webpage of internal info. The cable companies use it to remotely diagnose problems.
This probably also means that the cable company could check the signal level that the cable modem is receiving and start wondering why it is only half (or less) the expected level -- as it would be if you put a splitter or two ahead of it.
Yes, they could. But if you're suggesting they could use it as a means to see if you have things connected that you shouldn't, I think it's impractical and they have far bigger things to spend time on. The signal level is going to vary widely for a variety of reasons. And even if they did suspect it, what could they do? Almost all of these splits are inside the house and they can't come in to check without telling you first. In which case you just undo it.
Also, as someone else pointed out, the vast majority of cable customers can't get much for free anymore by just making more cable splits. Most systems are already digital and the rest are moving that way quickly, with the unencoded channels being very limited.
re: "Also, as someone else pointed out, the vast majority of cable customers can't get much for free anymore by just making more cable splits."
With TWC cable, I get what you might call "free Basic cable" and they know all about it - or at least a few techs do.
The installation: My cable goes to a TWC-provided splitter, with one run to the cable modem for Internet/phone and the other to a 3-way splitter.
Off of the three-way, one output goes to the Digital Cable Box for my flat screen and the other 2 go to cable amplifiers to feed the 6 other TV's/TV-enabled computers in my house. There's also a couple of spare runs for those times when I want to take a portable TV out on the deck or into the backyard.
I've had problems with my cable box in the past and have had techs over the house. Obviously the first thing they do is bypass my 3-way to eliminate the variables. Once that doesn't solve the problem (and it never does) they hook it all back up again the way I had it. They've even complimented me on the layout of the splitters, the neat cable runs, etc.
Yes, I'm paying for digital cable, which I know the OP isn't, but I'm still getting basic cable to 6 other TV's "free of charge", with their knowledge.
As far as checking for other devices on their cable, I had a situation a while back that tells me that it's not that easy for them to do - or that they don't want to.
I went to a local TWC store and traded in a suspected bad cable box for a new one. They screwed up and never gave me credit for the old one, charging me for 2 boxes for 3 months until I finally realized it. When I called them, and they accused me of still having the second box in my house, I pointed out to them that all boxes have addresses so why don't they check and see when the last time my old box had communicated with them. "Um...err...we can't really do that...we'll just credit your account for the 3 months rental fee."
The only thing they really care about is that you don't compromise their system with leaky connections (use good cable, leave the toy twist on connectors on the shelf etc). We haven't had an "outlet charge" since the third owner back of the system we are on.
It is trivial for them to map out cabling with a TDR. The main thing they care about is leakage because they need to comply with FCC rules since your cabling becomes part of their system.
It is trivial for them to find the MACs of the devices connected to their network.
I had a similar case where they tried to charge us for a returned box. They dug in their heels even after I mentioned I had the receipt (I did) from when I returned it. They said they would need to see the receipt. They backed down after I told them since they had a fee for everything I would need them to authorize a processing fee for me to produce the receipt. She put my on hold and then came back and told me she would cancel the charge "this time".
It is "trivial" for the network engineers who have access to the network administration side of the computer system to poll and check MAC addresses and serial numbers on the hardware "live"...
At the customer service store the "representatives" only have access to the customer database and a POS terminal which activates any boxes sold/deactivates any returns based on the scanning of an encoded bar code on back of the set top box they are selling or accepting back as a return...
When you call the customer service hot-line number and get put on hold the voice talking to you is checking with representatives and supervisors of a higher level who have access to additional information and technical capabilities that the basic level-ones who first answer the calls do not...
Always keep your receipts... Always send a copy, as if you continue to assert your dispute you will need your original if you want to bring a civil lawsuit to resolve the issue in court...
re: "It is "trivial" for the network engineers who have access to the network administration side of the computer system to poll and check MAC addresses and serial numbers on the hardware "live"... "
Yep, I knew that when I talked to the CSR and asked her to see when the last time the old box had "checked in". It didn't matter to me if she escalated it to someone who could actually check it or just told me that she couldn't, because I knew the box wasn't in the house, so either way I was going to get the credit.
Her answer of "Um...err...we can't really do that..." just got me my refund sooner.
With a GOOD splitter, you generally get a 3.5db line and 2 7db lines. Use the 3.5 for your data. You will lose the signal strength even if nothing is connected to the second and third outputs.
I'm on Rogers (in Canada) and they set me up with 2 3way splitters. The first splits off to the modem on the 3.5Dzb line, and to the digital box from the first 7db line - the second 3 way connects to the second 7db line and splits off to the other TVs in the house and to the TV tuner on my PC.
Not necessarily. At my first splitter I have a output for internet and one for tv's. The tv run is then split multiple times for each room. However at the input to the cable modem I added a splitter for an adjacent tv. Works fine. I ran many internet speed tests with and without the splitter and there is no difference in internet speed or service. However YMMV depending on cable signal strength.
It wasn't the installer, I'm not paying for cable TV. It's TW, and only costs me $19.95 a month. Used to pay $49.95, but they offered this light service.
I have rabbit ears, but can't get but a handful of channels. When I hooked up the cable to the TV, I must get about 30 channels, most of which I've never heard about.
Can't get DSL, and this is much faster than the dial up I had at $14.95 a month. Plus, it doesn't tie up my phone line.
You apparently verified that you can receive the basic TV channels off the cable line entering your house that is connected to your cable modem by hooking up a TV. There is no "box" involved. All you need are a splitter or splitters connected as I indicated in my previous post. You usually want a 2 way after the cable enters the house to seperate for TVs and cable. Then, if necessary to split it more, you split the TV one again as needed. You can also usually split the cable side again, but only if it's necessary. Go to RadioShack and tell them what you want to do and they will have the splitters and cable.
You do understand they don't have a separate wire for the internet-only customers, right? When they hook up an internet-only customer, on an old-style cable system at least, they can install a filter (looks like a little silver can) on the drop for your house, to completely block the TV band, but still let the internet digital signal pass through. Apparently they don't bother any more, in your area. Same way they used to keep every TV subscriber from getting HBO and such.
Like I said, enjoy the freebie while it lasts. When and if your local cable TV goes all-digital, those free channels will vanish. Without the 'box' you get nothing.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.