oliver.greg at gmail.com
Thu Jan 14 18:57:04 UTC 2010
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Kirk Bocek <t004 at kbocek.com> wrote:
> Johnny wrote:
>> 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.
> I'll second that. I had what seemed like a technically capable cable company
> tech come out some years ago. He made a point of saying that you need to use
> splitters that go to 1Ghz. Of course of I have *stacks* 800Mhz and 900Mhz
> Now if someone could explain to me what the ratings on the "Satellite"
> splitters mean. They're labeled as going to something like 2350 Mhz. Do they
> behave differently than the 'cable' splitters?
Well, technically there is no such thing as a satellite splitter...
Since they finally figured out to separate the signal from different
birds, there is now no need to run a separate "channel" (read cable)
for like signals. This means they can now use 1 cable for multiple
signals.. In the real world, we have had this for quite a while
(think QAM, but with much larger bandwidth)..
These are not really splitters, but more (multi) plexers... Since the
signals are basic, the electronics in the multiplexers/de-multiplexers
are cheap and can be thrown into what looks like an analog splitter..
More information about the mythtv-users