beww at beww.org
Thu Jan 14 18:52:37 UTC 2010
On Thursday 14 January 2010 11:44:45 am Greg Oliver wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Johnny <jarpublic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> new spanking "Digital 1000MHz Splitter"!!!
> >>> I keep laughing as I read that.
> >>> LOL - That's about as good as the "technician" using a DTV satellite
> >> plexer for a ATSC/QAM splitter in my attic!
> > I am getting out of my element here but I don't think that is as
> > absurd as it initially appears. The old analog cable splitters only
> > passed up to 800 MHz (I think). When the cable cos started carrying
> > internet service, phone, digital cable, etc. they utilized more
> > bandwidth and require 1000 MHz splitters. The digital refers to the
> > fact that it can pass the digital cable services.
> > _______________________________________________
> Nope - that's a good explanation..
Close, the upper end of frequency response of cable systems does keep going
up, and the reason is the additional services being carried, but many digital
services are carried well below the top end of the system, especially the
return (upstream) portion of cable modems.
All that matters is the frequency response of the passive devices, the word
"digital" really means nothing, though it might be easier for the installers
to understand than an actual frequency rating.
More information about the mythtv-users