Sat dish distro Q

Ron Lowe wrote:


As an aside, I've been considering communal systems, and wondered why
they don't use sat-IF amps and simply trunk all 4 signals into each
apartment, where each resident will then have a multi-switch and can add
as many outlets as he wants for no extra cost.

This would have the advantage that there's no need to run new cabling
back to the central multiswitch with all the associated costs when a new
sat point is required.

Obviously, the reason is up-front cost, because relatively few people
would use this facility.

But in might be a good system.
You have a very good idea. I think the reason the current technology
became almost universally adopted is that many systems were retrofitted,
and because in the early days the need for more than one universal feed
was unheard of.
If history could be re-run I think that in the absence of fibre we would
have gone for a system with four parallel networks, and a four-way
outlet in each flat. This would probably be in a cupboard, with cables
from there to every room. In truth it would be almost as cheap to
install as the multiswitch system that only provides one feed, because a
switch costs about £10 per outlet and the three extra downleads would
probably cost about the same. And we are now entering the era of major
multiswitch maintenance costs. A 4 x CT80 cable with a single outer
sheath would have an OD of only about 12mm and would be OK for runs of
30m if the head end amps were designed with appropriate slope and output.
When it seemed that BSB might be a success the trade envisaged
distributing the one-band, one polarisation signal along with UHF,
without the need for switching. The plan was to ignore Sky!

Bill

If history could be re-run I think that in the absence of fibre we would
have gone for a system with four parallel networks, and a four-way
outlet in each flat. This would probably be in a cupboard, with cables
from there to every room. In truth it would be almost as cheap to
install as the multiswitch system that only provides one feed, because a
switch costs about £10 per outlet and the three extra downleads would
probably cost about the same.


And we are now entering the era of major
multiswitch maintenance costs.

In what way Bill?..

A 4 x CT80 cable with a single outer
sheath would have an OD of only about 12mm and would be OK for runs of
30m if the head end amps were designed with appropriate slope and output.
When it seemed that BSB might be a success the trade envisaged
distributing the one-band, one polarisation signal along with UHF,
without the need for switching. The plan was to ignore Sky!

Bill



--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

And we are now entering the era of major
multiswitch maintenance costs.

In what way Bill?..

We are kept busy replacing faulty switches, the main reason being that
there are so many of them. It's expensive because the switch isn't cheap
and its time consuming.

Bill

For the wall plates, presumably I need this:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CX241M.html

For the quad run to the quattro lnb, would the panel suggest 4 individual
cables, or the quad co-ax lnb (expensive!) ??


TIA

Tim.

Tim.. wrote:


For the wall plates, presumably I need this:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CX241M.html

For the quad run to the quattro lnb, would the panel suggest 4
individual cables, or the quad co-ax lnb (expensive!) ??


TIA

Tim.

That advert's a bit confused, because it mentions 'quadruplexed' when
the outlet contains a triplexed feed and a straight through one. The
item is actually a Labgear module, strangely identical to a Triax one;
you need to buy a frame to put it in, and these aren't shown in 'related
items', which is a bit daft. If you Google for Labgear or Triax modular
you should be able to fine the range at better prices.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

And we are now entering the era of major
multiswitch maintenance costs.

In what way Bill?..

We are kept busy replacing faulty switches, the main reason being that
there are so many of them. It's expensive because the switch isn't cheap
and its time consuming.

Bill

Why do they keep falling over then?, all low power low volts shouldn't
be that much of a problem to make reliable ones?..

Cant be lightning all the time shirley;?..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

And we are now entering the era of major
multiswitch maintenance costs.
In what way Bill?..
We are kept busy replacing faulty switches, the main reason being that
there are so many of them. It's expensive because the switch isn't cheap
and its time consuming.

Bill

Why do they keep falling over then?, all low power low volts shouldn't
be that much of a problem to make reliable ones?..

Cant be lightning all the time shirley;?..

To be honest I think the problem is that the building industry hasn't
caught on to the idea that they could specify particular products, so
cheapness is the over-riding consideration when the installer chooses a
switch. I would happily use switches that cost, say, 50% more than the
average, if the product was going to be exceptionally reliable. This is
because we are not generally working to a price on our maintenance work.
However I can't find such a product.

Bill