"Clive Page" wrote in message ...
I'm just toying with the idea of getting a Freesat dish to get a few
more channels than with Freeview. The main obstacle is the need to put
in another coax downlead. There is a bit of plastic ducting buried in
the wall leading up to the loft, but unfortunately it's already full
with one TV lead and one for the FM radio, and I don't want to do
without either at the moment. It's not obvious to me that any two of
these three signals could easily share one downlead either.

I'm still considering buying a dish and LNB and doing the installation
myself - from other threads here recently it doesn't sound to be all
that difficult. On the other hand the cost probably won't be much less
than getting a firm of dish installers to do the whole thing. But I've
no doubt their standard method of installation will be to drill a nasty
hole in the living room wall or through a window frame and make a not
very neat job, which will be annoying to look at for ever after.

But, I've been thinking... There seem to be a good many video senders on
the market now and it occurs to me that this technology ought to be
provide a much neater solution: put the lead from the dish into the
loft, have a satellite receiver and video sender in the loft, and
transmit the signal wirelessly down to the TV. Is it feasible to do
something like that, to avoid all the nasty installation of yet another
coax downlead?

--
Clive Page

Use one or other to pull a new CT100 cable through and then

http://www.maplin.co.uk/3-output-wall-plate-36359

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...
I'm just toying with the idea of getting a Freesat dish to get a few
more channels than with Freeview. The main obstacle is the need to put
in another coax downlead. There is a bit of plastic ducting buried in
the wall leading up to the loft, but unfortunately it's already full
with one TV lead and one for the FM radio, and I don't want to do
without either at the moment. It's not obvious to me that any two of
these three signals could easily share one downlead either.

I'm still considering buying a dish and LNB and doing the installation
myself - from other threads here recently it doesn't sound to be all
that difficult. On the other hand the cost probably won't be much less
than getting a firm of dish installers to do the whole thing. But I've
no doubt their standard method of installation will be to drill a nasty
hole in the living room wall or through a window frame and make a not
very neat job, which will be annoying to look at for ever after.

But, I've been thinking... There seem to be a good many video senders on
the market now and it occurs to me that this technology ought to be
provide a much neater solution: put the lead from the dish into the
loft, have a satellite receiver and video sender in the loft, and
transmit the signal wirelessly down to the TV. Is it feasible to do
something like that, to avoid all the nasty installation of yet another
coax downlead?

--
Clive Page

Use one or other to pull a new CT100 cable through and then



Assuming of course that it's run through a clean length of conduit and not
nailed on plastic channelling full of bits of plaster and twisted lead,
personally I wouldn't advise trying to replace the cable unless there is
absolutely no alternative, as the most likely outcome is that he will wind
up with it stuck halfway and after one desperate final tug it will break,
leaving him with nothing, except despair (been there, done that, on a number
of occasions) my advice, as others have suggested, is 'don't be greedy',
especially if the original coax is of the older low-loss, thick copper
braided variety.

Rick wrote:

Assuming of course that it's run through a clean length of conduit and
not nailed on plastic channelling full of bits of plaster and twisted
lead, personally I wouldn't advise trying to replace the cable unless
there is absolutely no alternative, as the most likely outcome is that
he will wind up with it stuck halfway and after one desperate final tug
it will break, leaving him with nothing, except despair

Very good advice.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Very good advice.

Thanks to all for the suggestions.

What nobody has commented on is my suggestions that downleads ought not
be necessary at all. I can move my computer to anywhere in the house
and get a wifi signal (and even some limited form of television on it).
Why on earth can't I do the same with a TV? What I'd like to have is a
suitable transmitter hidden in the loft connected up to whatever aerials
and dishes are on the roof. But such a system doesn't seem to exist.
For those with portable TVs or more then one around the host that would
be a great boon, surely.

There's a market opportunity there, I can't help feeling.

--
Clive Page

In article , Clive Page
scribeth thus
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Very good advice.

Thanks to all for the suggestions.

What nobody has commented on is my suggestions that downleads ought not
be necessary at all. I can move my computer to anywhere in the house
and get a wifi signal (and even some limited form of television on it).
Why on earth can't I do the same with a TV? What I'd like to have is a
suitable transmitter hidden in the loft connected up to whatever aerials
and dishes are on the roof. But such a system doesn't seem to exist.
For those with portable TVs or more then one around the host that would
be a great boon, surely.

There's a market opportunity there, I can't help feeling.


Well video senders do exist but the quality is rather variable. There
are only so many "licence exempt" channels to go round so if everyone
had one;!.

Its quite congested in a lot of area's with plain olde wi-fi already...
--
Tony Sayer

Also, last time I looked, video senders only support inferior quality
CV, not RGB.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:50:47 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Well video senders do exist but the quality is rather variable. There
are only so many "licence exempt" channels to go round so if everyone
had one;!.

Its quite congested in a lot of area's with plain olde wi-fi already...
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Clive Page said...

Why on earth can't I do the same with a TV?

Unless you were to obtain specially adapted TV's and STB's you would
have to re transmit the signals on the current TV broadcast frequencies
thus becoming a pirate TV broadcaster and causing huge interference
problems for your neighbours. And I imagine the BBC,ITV, Channel 4 and
all the other broadcasters would object to the copyright infringment.


--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

In message , Java Jive
writes
Also, last time I looked, video senders only support inferior quality
CV, not RGB.

As had been discussed in this NG, it is somewhat debatable as to whether
CV is invariably inferior to RGB.
--
Ian

On all my TVs, there is absolutely no doubt that Red-Green-Blue
Component Video (RGB) is superior to Composite Video (CV):

"The characteristics of the artifact being investigated are diagonal
lines across the edges of horizontally moving objects. These are
[...]
very obvious in source material fed to the TVs by composite video, but
not discernible in the same material fed to the TVs by RGB."

There then follows photographic evidence of the artifacts that affect
both types of TV (CRT & LCD) when fed CV, but are completely absent
when fed RGB.

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...TvsLCD-p2.html

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:17:47 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

As had been discussed in this NG, it is somewhat debatable as to whether
CV is invariably inferior to RGB.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Java Jive
writes
Also, last time I looked, video senders only support inferior quality
CV, not RGB.

As had been discussed in this NG, it is somewhat debatable as to whether
CV is invariably inferior to RGB.

Of course a broken implementation of RGB might be awful. But so might a
broken implementation of composite.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.