# MOCA+OTA Antenna+TWC Internet+TiVO=Headaches



## mark.mayhugh (Nov 9, 2015)

Hello everyone and thanks in advance for your help. I am wanting to cut the cord, but I am having some trouble figuring everything out. I am going to use an indoor antenna for OTA broadcasts. But, I don't want to buy an antenna for all 3 of my TVs. In theory I can hook it up in my upstairs, point it out the window and run a cable to the splitters in the attic that I assume control all the coax.

I need to set up a MOCA network for my house using the same coax. That is complicated further by the fact that it will be Time Warner Cable Internet, which I assume uses the exact same coax as the OTA Antenna would use.

Hopefully someone will be able to help me figure out how to run the one OTA antenna to the whole house with cable internet and a MOCA network for the TiVOs.

Here's what I have in each room (and what I will have):
*Bedroom* - TiVO (either Roamio OTA or Mini), Blu-Ray (wi-fi), smart TV, Roku 3
*Kid's Room* - Xbox 360, Roku Stick (or maybe Chromecast because I think that will work with Sling TV as well) and maybe a Blu-Ray
*Living Room* - Xbox One (prefer it to be wired for gaming), TiVO (whichever one I don't use), cable router/modem with wi-fi, laptop (wi-fi)
*Upstairs *- PC (wi-fi)

What is the easiest way to set this up? I absolutely want the Xbox One to be wired. I've had enough dropped games using wi-fi what I just want to pull my hair out and since it's already disappearing that's not good! I don't want to buy 3 antennas because the living room and my son's room have windows that don't face the towers. When I talked to a TiVO rep today he told me to run the antenna through the coax to cover all my outlets, but when I Google setting that up with MOCA it keeps telling me you can't do it because of the cable internet. And to be honest, I'm not even entirely sure that the splitters in my attic are the right ones since where it says input nothing is plugged in. Right now I have DirecTV so I have no idea what's going on.

So, If I may paraphrase: Help me anyone, you're my only hope!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Running the MoCA over the same coax as OTA signals or TWC's internet won't be a problem, as MoCA uses higher frequencies than either OTA or TWC does. With running OTA and TWC internet over the same coax, you may run into some problems, as those frequencies can overlap. Another issue is that TWC will also probably be sending encrypted cable TV signals into your home as well, even though you won't be getting TV service through them, and those signals will also overlap with OTA signals. 

The solution is to completely isolate TWC's incoming signals from your OTA signals. There are several ways you could do this. One solution is to just run the antenna separately to the main TiVo DVR and then have Minis at all the other TVs. The Minis and DVR would then communicate all over MoCA frequencies, and not interfere with TWC's signals at all. Another solution is to just make sure the coax network in the house carrying the OTA antenna signals is physically separated from TWC's incoming signals to your cable modem. There are probably other ways to try to block or filter out the OTA signals from TWC's signals, but that gets more complicated.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Aren't internet and DTV feeds already separate?

Assuming they are:

1. TWC internet needs a dedicated coax feed to the livingroom's modem if it doesn't already.

2. Assuming the TVs are already getting fed by the DTV coax, the simplest setup is to find the DTV's main splitter and replace it with the antenna's input.

3. In livingroom, install a moca adapter on the *OTA* line. Then from the adapter: ethernet goes to router, cable-out goes to Roamio.

4. Connect Roamio by ethernet to router.

5. Mini in the bedroom should be able to find the moca network.


----------



## mark.mayhugh (Nov 9, 2015)

Right now I sadly have AT&T DSL. I haven't had TWC in almost 5 years. Long story short I have been waiting for a call from a customer service supervisor for 23 months since they wanted me to pay $108 for 3 days of a billing cycle and told me that they didn't bill ahead. Tomorrow I am going to bite the bullet and call them back to find out how to resolve it so I can have them again. AT&T has been tolerable until now because I have used DTV for everything except the Xbox. But since my 1 year of promo credits expired after 6 months and they charged me a $30 restoral fee for my service being interrupted 4 days after I paid my bill (which they apologized for and refunded and told me they had no idea how that happened) I'm fed up with them and there's no way the 5 Mbps DSL can handle cord cutting.

Right now I have no idea who is using what. There's a coax on one side of my "attic" which is the tiny space under the roof on either side of the upstairs that runs separate from everything all the way to the other side of the house. On the other side of the attic there are two splitters linked together with all the outs running to my rooms, but the in is just a cut wire. So trying to figure out where/how to hook everything up is driving me nuts. I need to know how it will work and that it will work before I cut the cord.


----------



## Time_Lord (Jun 4, 2012)

Make sure you use a PoE (MoCA Point of Entry) filter with your configuration. If you are using an over the air antenna you don't want to transmit your MoCA signals to everybody, plus you get into the realm of being an unlicensed radio station without it.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Are you *only* looking for OTA antenna content to be available via your TiVo devices? Or are you *also* looking to have the OTA signal available to every TV in the house, so that each TV can be used to tune live OTA programming directly?


You've listed 4 rooms. Do you have coax wall outlets in each of these rooms? If so, how many outlets in each room? (Enumerate, if you can.) How many of these outlets are currently in-use for your DirecTV setup? (Enumerate, if you can, including DirecTV set-top models.)


You've done a bit of the legwork in finding where the coax lines may tie together, but much more detail is needed. Can you take a pic of the splitters you found in the attic and post it? Also, can you see where the DirecTV coax enters your house, from the outside, and then use this to trace how the DirecTV coax feeds your rooms?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

1. You need to figure out where all the coax goes.

2. Cable and OTA cannot, under any circumstance, share coax cable. Not possible, and likely highly illegal.

3. Figure out where the coax cables go. Get a tester if need be. Set up the cable modem with a coax from TWC's demarc to the modem, and nothing else. Then put an antenna in the attic or wherever for OTA, and use a splitter that has n+1 ports, n being the number of rooms that need the actual OTA signal. With the extra port, put another splitter on for the rooms that need MoCA. This minimizes OTA losses, MoCA can fight through the splitters just fine. Just upstream of the top splitter, put a MoCA PoE filter so that it doesn't leak out the antenna and associated wiring. If need be, you could put a distribution amp or pre-amp on the OTA signal to boost it.


----------



## confinoj (Apr 2, 2003)

I have a Roamio basic using OTA (rooftop antenna), two minis, moca network, cable internet. I agree with all comments here. Internet coax should be completely isolated from the rest of the coax network and just feed the cable modem/router. Antenna and moca can share coax. Minimizing splitting from antenna to Tivo is ideal. Works very well for me.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> 2. Cable and OTA cannot, under any circumstance, share coax cable. Not possible, and likely highly illegal.


Not impossible, VHF/UHF diplexers could be used to mix VHF from one source with UHF from another source. In fact, I believe HarperVision did just that.

I can't imagine why you think doing this would be "highly illegal". What you do with signals in the privacy of your own coax is your own business, as long as it doesn't leak out of your house and piss off the FCC.

OK, it might be illegal in Utah


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Hope mark's OK...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Not impossible, VHF/UHF diplexers could be used to mix VHF from one source with UHF from another source. In fact, I believe HarperVision did just that.
> 
> I can't imagine why you think doing this would be "highly illegal". What you do with signals in the privacy of your own coax is your own business, as long as it doesn't leak out of your house and piss off the FCC.
> 
> OK, it might be illegal in Utah


1. It's going to interfere. Cable systems are pretty much jam-packed up to their upper frequency, which ranges from 550mhz to 1000mhz, depending on the system.

2. An antenna hooked up to a cable system would cause massive signal leakage, and would very likely be picked up by the FCC, and very likely have the cable company and/or FCC knocking at your door. I don't know if they would fine you, but anyone stupid enough to do that deserves a big fat fine.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> 1. It's going to interfere. Cable systems are pretty much jam-packed up to their upper frequency, which ranges from 550mhz to 1000mhz, depending on the system.


Hmm, isn't it amazing that cable providers are able to offer 150Mbps (or faster) internet and still squeeze all that bandwidth through that "jam packed" spectrum?

Granted, mixing OTA and cable signals isn't something that most people want/need to do, and it takes careful configuration to do it right, but when Bigg says it is impossible and/or illegal he is mistaken.

I will certainly grant you this much, if you say something is "impossible" then for you, it will indeed be impossible. Nevermind that others have done it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Hmm, isn't it amazing that cable providers are able to offer 150Mbps (or faster) internet and still squeeze all that bandwidth through that "jam packed" spectrum?


That's a nonsense statement. One of the reasons it is so jam packed is because there's internet. And phone. And security. And VOD. And linear video in SD. And HD. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, since your logic is completely ass-backwards. Where do you think the channels for DOCSIS 3 came from? They weren't just sitting around empty since 1978 or whenever the system was installed. Aside from frequency upgrades, analog channels used to be there. Most systems no longer have them. Some systems have implemented SDV to reduce the number of physical channels needed to deliver HD. Many have split nodes over and over again, pushing fiber farther and farther out into the field. Those 8 or 16 DOCSIS channels used to run half the town. Now they run a couple of blocks. Etc.



> Granted, mixing OTA and cable signals isn't something that most people want/need to do, and it takes careful configuration to do it right, but when Bigg says it is impossible and/or illegal he is mistaken.


It is _*not possible*_. Cable uses the entire spectrum all the way up to the high end of the system. It *will overlap* with OTA, that is a guarantee. Stop spreading misinformation. Cable needs it's own system, and mixing them *will* cause problems.



> I will certainly grant you this much, if you say something is "impossible" then for you, it will indeed be impossible. Nevermind that others have done it.


It is impossible with today's modern digital cable systems. What may have been possible with notch filters back in the analog days where channels stayed on a single frequency basically forever doesn't work in a dynamic digital world, where cable providers periodically shift stuff around in an effort to fit more and more stuff own the same pipe.

You would have to be incredibly stupid to do something that clearly won't work and would likely end up being highly illegal.


----------



## PCurry57 (Feb 27, 2012)

mark.mayhugh said:


> Hello everyone and thanks in advance for your help. I am wanting to cut the cord, but I am having some trouble figuring everything out. I am going to use an indoor antenna for OTA broadcasts. But, I don't want to buy an antenna for all 3 of my TVs. In theory I can hook it up in my upstairs, point it out the window and run a cable to the splitters in the attic that I assume control all the coax.
> 
> I need to set up a MOCA network for my house using the same coax. That is complicated further by the fact that it will be Time Warner Cable Internet, which I assume uses the exact same coax as the OTA Antenna would use.
> 
> ...


I pulled the cable cards and returned them with their tuning adapters to TWC a couple of years ago. When I moved last year I added moca. I run moca over the same coax my twc internet is on. I run a separate coax for ota. Fortunately a second coax was already present from the days of A-B cable, it's this coax I run my OTA antenna source over. My OTA antenna is located on my balcony. You can add a switch to a mica adapter to provide my wired Ethernet connections in the living room


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That's a nonsense statement.
> ...
> You obviously don't know what you're talking about, since your logic is completely ass-backwards.
> ...
> ...


Wow, you sure told me! 

Sigh. Clearly Bigg is unwilling and/or unable to even consider the possibility that he might be mistaken. I tried to give him an opportunity to reconsider, but he isn't really listening. So be it.

In case anyone cares, here is a method to combine cable and OTA signals on the same coax, perhaps using something like this:

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...=google_base&gclid=CNKNyMH6l8kCFQuSaQodLWgDtw

If you follow that link and select the "Features" tab, you'll find this line near the top:

"Note: Units Vhf side DOES NOT pass UHF signals. Uhf side DOES NOT pass VHF signals."

I thought about making a diagram, but the connection is so simple that no diagram is really needed. It can be used two different ways, depending on whether you want VHF channels or UHF channels from the OTA antenna. I'll assume VHF channels comes from OTA while UHF channels come from cable.

Connect the OTA antenna to the VHF port. Connect from a splitter of the cable coax tree to the UHF port. Connect the LINE port to a Bolt or Roamio or Premiere. PRESTO -- you've just achieved the impossible!

FACT #1: VHF signals from the OTA antenna are combined with UHF signals from cable onto the same coax, which connects to the TiVo.

FACT #2: No OTA signals will clash with the same frequencies on the cable system, because the diplexer keeps them separated.

FACT #3: No cable signals will reach the OTA antenna, because the diplexer blocks them. No FCC swat teams will storm your house.

FACT #4: The TiVo, after appropriate configuration, will be able to access whichever OTA digital channels occupy the 54-216MHz frequencies in the VHF band. Any OTA channels outside of that band will not be received.

FACT #5: The CableCard in the TiVo will also be able to tune to whichever digital channels occupy the 470-809MHz frequencies in the UHF band. Any cable channels that use frequencies outside of the UHF band will not be received.

Granted, this could be described as usual, unconventional, unorthodox, or even goofy. Not many people want or need to mix OTA and cable in this way. I certainly don't recommend this to anyone unless they really know what they are doing. Many OTA and cable channels become inaccessible by doing this, and that is an inherent compromise that results from this kind of system configuration.

It most certainly isn't impossible (as I mentioned before, HarperVision says he's done this kind of thing and it can be made to work). It isn't illegal. You can keep huffing and puffing all you want, that won't change any of the specific engineering facts that I've outlined above. You can also spout personal attacks and disparage my intelligence, knowledge or breeding, if that makes you feel better. Such attacks carry no weight in a dispute over the inner workings of RF technology.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Wow, you sure told me!
> 
> Sigh. Clearly Bigg is unwilling and/or unable to even consider the possibility that he might be mistaken. I tried to give him an opportunity to reconsider, but he isn't really listening. So be it.
> 
> ...


I am not mistaken, because I know what I am talking about. The diplexer is for *OTA* signals. OTA is not cable. Period. Based on Wikipedia, VHF OTA signals range from 54mhz to 216mhz, while UHF OTA signals range from 470mhz to 697mhz. I already know that cable ranges in the downstream from 50mhz to 860mhz (1000mhz on some systems), with frequencies below 50mhz being used for upstream. Therefore, *OTA and cable are NOT compatible*. A diplexer would only pass part of the cable signal, and thus be unsuitable for cable. That would, in fact, avoid the FCC coming and making the cable company disconnect you for illegally spewing RF energy out, but it would also *make your cable useless.*

Therefore, the answer to the OP's question is that cable and OTA are not in any way compatible, and cannot be mixed on the same cable. They have never been compatible.

Because DirecTV uses higher frequencies, you used to be able to put DirecTV and OTA together on one cable or DirecTV and cable. But never cable and OTA. You still could put DirecTV with something else, but that would prevent you from using DECA, so it doesn't work with today's Genie-based DirecTV system.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I am not mistaken, because I know what I am talking about. The diplexer is for *OTA* signals. OTA is not cable. Period. Based on Wikipedia, VHF OTA signals range from 54mhz to 216mhz, while UHF OTA signals range from 470mhz to 697mhz. I already know that cable ranges in the downstream from 50mhz to 860mhz (1000mhz on some systems), with frequencies below 50mhz being used for upstream. Therefore, *OTA and cable are NOT compatible*. A diplexer would only pass part of the cable signal, and thus be unsuitable for cable. That would, in fact, avoid the FCC coming and making the cable company disconnect you for illegally spewing RF energy out, but it would also *make your cable useless.*
> 
> Therefore, the answer to the OP's question is that cable and OTA are not in any way compatible, and cannot be mixed on the same cable. They have never been compatible.
> 
> Because DirecTV uses higher frequencies, you used to be able to put DirecTV and OTA together on one cable or DirecTV and cable. But never cable and OTA. You still could put DirecTV with something else, but that would prevent you from using DECA, so it doesn't work with today's Genie-based DirecTV system.


Yada, yada, yada. You know, there is nothing wrong with being mistaken. It is part of the human condition. Nobody knows everything. I sure don't. But now you insist that you know what you are talking about, yet that claim conflicts with your other statements. You are clearly not an electrical engineer, or you wouldn't claim some of the silly things that you claim. Perhaps you should just come clean and say "oops, my bad, I didn't really quite fully understand this stuff". That I could respect.

You claim "...cable and OTA are not in any way compatible" and there is a tiny bit of truth to that, but your mistake is the phrase"not in any way". If only you had said "... cable and OTA are not entirely compatible", then your statement would have been essentially correct. The only incompatibilty is that they use different modulation schemes, and thus they require different receiver circuits in order to convert them from the electrical frequencies on the cable into moving pictures on your TV screen. Fortunately, many TiVo models can work with both OTA and catv signals.

Where you are fully, completely, dead wrong is your delusional belief that the differences between OTA and catv signals prevent them from coexisting on the same coax. When a tuner needs to receive a TV channel, it needs only the frequencies in the 6MHz band that the TV channel is assigned to. Older OTA signals used the entire 6MHz band for a single analog channel. Digital TV generally packs multiple TV signals into a single 6MHz band (either a couple of HD channels, or maybe 5 or 6 SD channels, depending on which encryption scheme is used). When a tuner is decoding an HD or SD channel, all it cares about is the 6MHz band where the channel resides.

You seem to think that the diplexer I referenced can only be used for OTA signals, and that catv signals will magically be unable to pass through the ports of the diplexer. You are dead wrong.

You seem to think that cable can only work if the entire band 50MHz-860MHz is present on the coax. You are dead wrong. Keep claiming that you know what you're talking about if it makes you happy, but that only proves you are now being disingenuous rather than merely mistaken.

Coax (and your TiVo) doesn't care if you mix OTA and cable signals, as long as each 6MHz channel comes only from the OTA antenna or only from the cable feed. If you truly knew what you were talking about, you would understand this.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Im sure a lot has been said already but this is quite simple. Antenna connects to Roamio and Roamio Ethernet to 1st MoCa adapter. 1st MoCa to house coax. 2nd MoCa adapter connects to rest of in use house coax. All other in use house coax connects to all devices. 2nd MoCa adapter connects to router via Ethernet. Time Warner feed coming in only connects to cable modem, Ethernet out connects to router.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Yada, yada, yada. You know, there is nothing wrong with being mistaken. It is part of the human condition. Nobody knows everything. I sure don't. But now you insist that you know what you are talking about, yet that claim conflicts with your other statements. You are clearly not an electrical engineer, or you wouldn't claim some of the silly things that you claim. Perhaps you should just come clean and say "oops, my bad, I didn't really quite fully understand this stuff". That I could respect.


There is nothing for me to say "oops" on, because I didn't post anything that's wrong. For the conditions given in the OP, everything I posted is completely correct. As far as RF leakage, you introduced the concept of a diplexer later in the conversation, so my statement was correct if a regular splitter were used. A diplexer would effectively make the OTA work, and not lead to anything illegal going down, since it just breaks the cable. It's just as good as not connecting cable to it in the first place.



> You claim "...cable and OTA are not in any way compatible" and there is a tiny bit of truth to that, but your mistake is the phrase"not in any way". If only you had said "... cable and OTA are not entirely compatible", then your statement would have been essentially correct. The only incompatibilty is that they use different modulation schemes, and thus they require different receiver circuits in order to convert them from the electrical frequencies on the cable into moving pictures on your TV screen. Fortunately, many TiVo models can work with both OTA and catv signals.


WOW. You are twisting my words right into a pretzel. If you actually read what I said, I clearly said that they are not compatible to be *on the same cable*. Trying to infer something from my statement about the signals and a device being compatible with one *OR* the other at a different point in time is completely absurd, and you'd need a really slimy lawyer with some serious word-bending logic to get there. It is completely disingenuous to use that sort of tortured logic here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're just being dishonest, and aren't stupid enough to actually believe that makes any sense.



> Where you are fully, completely, dead wrong is your delusional belief that the differences between OTA and catv signals prevent them from coexisting on the same coax. When a tuner needs to receive a TV channel, it needs only the frequencies in the 6MHz band that the TV channel is assigned to. Older OTA signals used the entire 6MHz band for a single analog channel. Digital TV generally packs multiple TV signals into a single 6MHz band (either a couple of HD channels, or maybe 5 or 6 SD channels, depending on which encryption scheme is used). When a tuner is decoding an HD or SD channel, all it cares about is the 6MHz band where the channel resides.


I know how OTA and cable work. What your dishonest and tortured logic is suggesting here, is that a cable system could, in theory, take OTA signals, and layer cable signals on top of that, using a diplexer, and only using the upper channels for cable. Well that's fine for an SMATV system that's designed specifically to do that, and would work just fine. But taking that as a counterexample to my post is against completely dishonest at best, and just plain stupid at worst, because we are clearly talking about commercial cable systems, which use the entire 50-860mhz (or whatever their upper limit is) frequency.



> You seem to think that the diplexer I referenced can only be used for OTA signals, and that catv signals will magically be unable to pass through the ports of the diplexer. You are dead wrong.


You are extremely slimy. You are putting words into my mouth. Of course a part of the cable signal will electrically pass through the diplexer. That doesn't make it useful for anything, because it isn't.



> You seem to think that cable can only work if the entire band 50MHz-860MHz is present on the coax. You are dead wrong. Keep claiming that you know what you're talking about if it makes you happy, but that only proves you are now being disingenuous rather than merely mistaken.


Modern digital cable systems require the entire frequency range to be passed through. And there are two fundamental problems with your diplexer concept. The first is that digital cable systems have stuff all over the frequency range, and will not work with part of that frequency range gone. It's possible you could get a few channels, but there's no way that everything will work, and no guarantee it will keep working as they can move anything around at will, since it's just all one big lump of bandwidth in the post-trap era now that analog is long gone, and everything is digital and encrypted.

Secondly, your logic about using VHF for an antenna and UHF for cable makes no sense because most HD OTA channels are UHF, and many digital cable systems don't extend that far into the UHF range, although many do go way up to 860mhz, depending on whether it has been rebuilt or not.



> Coax (and your TiVo) doesn't care if you mix OTA and cable signals, as long as each 6MHz channel comes only from the OTA antenna or only from the cable feed. If you truly knew what you were talking about, you would understand this.


That's great if you have a private SMATV system that you can engineer around the OTA frequencies in your market. But that's not what we're talking about, and to apply that to a commercial digital cable system that requires the full 50-860mhz range is completely dishonest, and just makes you look stupid.

The bottom line is that there is no way to combine OTA and cable on the same wire. No way, no how, not happening. If you do it in a way that's not illegal, the cable just won't work. That's reality.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> ... really slimy lawyer ... word-bending logic ... completely disingenuous ... just being dishonest ... dishonest and tortured logic ... completely dishonest ... just plain stupid
> ... You are extremely slimy ... completely dishonest ... just makes you look stupid.


Really?  Boy, I sure do want to thank you for your *valued feedback*. They say that ad hominem attacks are often the last resort of someone who is running out of logically valid arguments. As I said before, you can spout personal attacks and disparage my intelligence, knowledge or breeding, if that makes you feel better. Such attacks carry no weight in a dispute over the inner workings of RF technology.

I hope you won't mind if I cut out your rantings and focus on those statements of yours that appear to based on reason rather than rage. Also, since your reading skills appear to prevent you from being able to distinguish between *my speculation* about what you are thinking as indicated by "You seem to think" disclaimers, I will try to be excruciating careful to use nothing but your exact words to make my points, so that you will have no basis for further unwarranted attacks on my character 



> ... I didn't post anything that's wrong. For the conditions given in the OP, everything I posted is completely correct.


Your first post in this thread did not quote the OP, so your post either stands or falls on its own merits. Here's a reminder for you of the single point that I took issue with:



> 2. Cable and OTA cannot, under any circumstance, share coax cable. Not possible, and likely highly illegal.


You alone chose the rather extreme phrases "under any circumstance", "Not possible" and "likely highly illegal", so let's leave the innocent OP out of this. Clearly, if you had intended your comments to apply only within a limited context, you wouldn't have made such a forceful statement. Don't blame me for taking you at your word. Despite several offers for a graceful retraction, you still maintain "... I didn't post anything that's wrong."



> As far as RF leakage, you introduced the concept of a diplexer later in the conversation, so my statement was correct if a regular splitter were used. A diplexer would effectively make the OTA work, and not lead to anything illegal going down, since it just breaks the cable. It's just as good as not connecting cable to it in the first place.


Later in the conversation? Again, reading comprehension matters. My very first post, in direct response to your outrageous claim #2, specifically mentioned diplexers.

Yes, your statement might have been correct if you had toned down your claim to something a bit less universal than "under any circumstances". I've given you plenty of opportunities to back down, but you wouldn't avail yourself of those opportunities. It is certainly true that OTA and catv signals can be mooshed together in ways that will utterly fail. Supplying examples that make your statement true cannot vindicate you. You see, the fault with your claim is that it isn't defensible, since it is impossible for you to prove that it holds true "under any circumstances". Can't you see how absurd it was for you to make such a claim? A single example of circumstances which contradict your claim, such as the circuit that I described and the FACTS that go along with it, is sufficient to disprove what you say. Kind of backs you into a corner, does it not?

A diplexer doesn't "just break the cable", it facilitates combining OTA signals and catv signals on the same coax, so that the TiVo can receive both simultaneously. I believe I laid this out very carefully in the five "FACT" statements that I made. I also pointed out quite clearly that only *some* of the OTA signals would be used, along with *some* of the catv signals, and that the diplexer combines them in a *compatible* way on the coax that feeds into the TiVo.

So, that is an example of *specific circumstances* that allows the signals to be combined, in direct contradiction to your claims.



> What your ... logic is suggesting here, is that a cable system could, in theory, take OTA signals, and layer cable signals on top of that, using a diplexer, and only using the upper channels for cable.


The diplexer allows signals *of different frequencies* to be combined from two different sources onto the same coax in such a manner that there is no collision between the signals.



> Well that's fine for an SMATV system that's designed specifically to do that, and would work just fine. But taking that as a counterexample to my post is against completely dishonest at best, and just plain stupid at worst, because we are clearly talking about commercial cable systems, which use the entire 50-860mhz (or whatever their upper limit is) frequency.


Houston, I believe we have identified the problem. What "we" are talking about is everything and anything that is covered by the "under any circumstances" claim that you chose and repeatedly refused to back away from.

The fact that commercial cable signals are normally connected in an "all or nothing" fashion *absolutely does not imply that they can only be used that way.*



> Of course a part of the cable signal will electrically pass through the diplexer. That doesn't make it useful for anything, because it isn't.


This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed.



> Modern digital cable systems require the entire frequency range to be passed through. And there are two fundamental problems with your diplexer concept. The first is that digital cable systems have stuff all over the frequency range, and will not work with part of that frequency range gone. It's possible you could get a few channels, but there's no way that everything will work, and no guarantee it will keep working as they can move anything around at will, since it's just all one big lump of bandwidth in the post-trap era now that analog is long gone, and everything is digital and encrypted.


First you claim "...cable systems require the entire frequency range..." then you admit "It's possible you could get a few channels". Which is it? These are mutually exclusive claims, they cannot both be true. Therefore, you are clearly wrong about one or the other.



> Secondly, your logic about using VHF for an antenna and UHF for cable makes no sense because most HD OTA channels are UHF, and many digital cable systems don't extend that far into the UHF range, although many do go way up to 860mhz, depending on whether it has been rebuilt or not.


You're weaseling. I'll gladly wager that the Xfinity system in your own home extends well into the UHF range. I clearly indicated in the five FACTS that the diplexer would pass only part of the signals through. Again, reading comprehension counts.

Doesn't matter if most OTA channels are UHF or not. The same method can be used to pass UHF signals from the OTA antenna while passing VHF signals from catv. Again, any configuration that combines *some* OTA signals with *some* catv signals onto the same coax, so that a TiVo can receive them, constitutes a counterexample which disproves your *absurdly broad* claim.



> The bottom line is that there is no way to combine OTA and cable on the same wire. No way, no how, not happening. If you do it in a way that's not illegal, the cable just won't work. That's reality.


Repeating the same flawed claim doesn't magically make it true. Not sure what the source of your "reality" is, but I'd wager it isn't legal in all 50 states. Oh wait, do you live in Colorado? 

Richard Feynman said (paraphrased) "You mustn't fool yourself, despite the fact that you are the easiest one to fool". Your problem isn't merely that you are mistaken, which would be no big deal. The problem here is that you are caught in a logic trap of your own making. You use "I know what I'm talking about" as a virtual axiom, as if it is so inherently and obviously true that it can be accepted without proof. Sorry, won't fly. I think there is now ample evidence to support the theory that you are a complete poser.

Somewhere in your education (formal or informal) you have adopted a false concept, but you are so certain that it is true that you won't even consider any other possibility. No one else will ever convince you that you're wrong, because your ego won't even allow for that possibility.

You may now proceed with another flurry of personal attacks and name calling.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Thanks a lot, mark.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Really?  Boy, I sure do want to thank you for your *valued feedback*. They say that ad hominem attacks are often the last resort of someone who is running out of logically valid arguments. As I said before, you can spout personal attacks and disparage my intelligence, knowledge or breeding, if that makes you feel better. Such attacks carry no weight in a dispute over the inner workings of RF technology.


I'm going to say it like it is. In this case, you made it how it is, so don't come complaining to me when I call you out for what you're doing.



> I hope you won't mind if I cut out your rantings and focus on those statements of yours that appear to based on reason rather than rage. Also, since your reading skills appear to prevent you from being able to distinguish between *my speculation* about what you are thinking as indicated by "You seem to think" disclaimers, I will try to be excruciating careful to use nothing but your exact words to make my points, so that you will have no basis for further unwarranted attacks on my character
> 
> Your first post in this thread did not quote the OP, so your post either stands or falls on its own merits. Here's a reminder for you of the single point that I took issue with:
> 
> You alone chose the rather extreme phrases "under any circumstance", "Not possible" and "likely highly illegal", so let's leave the innocent OP out of this. Clearly, if you had intended your comments to apply only within a limited context, you wouldn't have made such a forceful statement. Don't blame me for taking you at your word. Despite several offers for a graceful retraction, you still maintain "... I didn't post anything that's wrong."


I did not post anything wrong, and I know that as a fact. I said "likely" highly illegal, and that was in response to a system with cable and OTA mixed without a diplexer.

Throughout this, you are using slimy lawyer tactics, which might work in court, but discussions here are not court cases, and thus, "cable" means a fully functional, bi-directional, 860mhz commercial cable system. Sure, that might not stand up in court, but using slimy lawyer tactics to try and pick holes in what I'm saying with weird fringe cases is just plain intellectually dishonest.

Most of your post here is just restating the same bull**** you posted before, created using those intellectually dishonest tactics to try and punch holes in what I am saying, even though with any reasonable interpretation, what I have said and posted in this thread is 100% correct, and anyone can see that.



> Later in the conversation? Again, reading comprehension matters. My very first post, in direct response to your outrageous claim #2, specifically mentioned diplexers.
> 
> Yes, your statement might have been correct if you had toned down your claim to something a bit less universal than "under any circumstances". I've given you plenty of opportunities to back down, but you wouldn't avail yourself of those opportunities. It is certainly true that OTA and catv signals can be mooshed together in ways that will utterly fail. Supplying examples that make your statement true cannot vindicate you. You see, the fault with your claim is that it isn't defensible, since it is impossible for you to prove that it holds true "under any circumstances". Can't you see how absurd it was for you to make such a claim? A single example of circumstances which contradict your claim, such as the circuit that I described and the FACTS that go along with it, is sufficient to disprove what you say. Kind of backs you into a corner, does it not?


There's nothing to back down from. You can twist my words and lawyer around them all you want, but in this context, a cable system means a fully functional, bi-directional 860mhz (or 1000mhz) system, which, be definition, cannot co-exist in any way, shape, or form with OTA signals. Period. End of discussion.



> A diplexer doesn't "just break the cable", it facilitates combining OTA signals and catv signals on the same coax, so that the TiVo can receive both simultaneously. I believe I laid this out very carefully in the five "FACT" statements that I made. I also pointed out quite clearly that only *some* of the OTA signals would be used, along with *some* of the catv signals, and that the diplexer combines them in a *compatible* way on the coax that feeds into the TiVo.
> 
> So, that is an example of *specific circumstances* that allows the signals to be combined, in direct contradiction to your claims.
> 
> The diplexer allows signals *of different frequencies* to be combined from two different sources onto the same coax in such a manner that there is no collision between the signals.


In many markets, it would break both OTA and cable. In some, OTA is all in the UHF band, and you could pass the bottom of the cable system through, which is of no value. Thus, you could just disconnect the cable and end up with the same thing.



> Houston, I believe we have identified the problem. What "we" are talking about is everything and anything that is covered by the "under any circumstances" claim that you chose and repeatedly refused to back away from.
> 
> The fact that commercial cable signals are normally connected in an "all or nothing" fashion *absolutely does not imply that they can only be used that way.*


LOL. Try telling that to an MSO. They would just roll their eyes. Cable fundamentally will not work if only part of the signal is passed. The exception would be plant rebuilds, where they will often only add new stuff above the old system's top frequency so that customer wiring with high-frequency roll-off issues doesn't magically break stuff that worked before. But that's not what we're talking about here.



> This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed.


It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that because part of the cable signal could electrically be passed that it counts for anything in reality. It doesn't. That buys you nothing. Modern cable systems don't work that way. Analog systems had channels with fixed frequencies, so you would know what you would get and not get. These days, stuff can move around from time to time, and stuff is scattered all over the place for a variety of reasons.



> First you claim "...cable systems require the entire frequency range..." then you admit "It's possible you could get a few channels". Which is it? These are mutually exclusive claims, they cannot both be true. Therefore, you are clearly wrong about one or the other.


Those are one in the same. Cable isn't working unless it's working. Not getting one channel, or 5 or 50. Completely working.



> You're weaseling. I'll gladly wager that the Xfinity system in your own home extends well into the UHF range. I clearly indicated in the five FACTS that the diplexer would pass only part of the signals through. Again, reading comprehension counts.


It's not surprising, but you are completely and totally bankrupt of all intellectual honesty pertaining to this discussion. YOU are weaseling with your slimy lawyering, and not using reasonable definitions of "cable" and "working".



> Doesn't matter if most OTA channels are UHF or not. The same method can be used to pass UHF signals from the OTA antenna while passing VHF signals from catv. Again, any configuration that combines *some* OTA signals with *some* catv signals onto the same coax, so that a TiVo can receive them, constitutes a counterexample which disproves your *absurdly broad* claim.


And neither combination would actually *WORK* on the cable side of things.



> Repeating the same flawed claim doesn't magically make it true. Not sure what the source of your "reality" is, but I'd wager it isn't legal in all 50 states. Oh wait, do you live in Colorado?
> 
> Richard Feynman said (paraphrased) "You mustn't fool yourself, despite the fact that you are the easiest one to fool". Your problem isn't merely that you are mistaken, which would be no big deal. The problem here is that you are caught in a logic trap of your own making. You use "I know what I'm talking about" as a virtual axiom, as if it is so inherently and obviously true that it can be accepted without proof. Sorry, won't fly. I think there is now ample evidence to support the theory that you are a complete poser.
> 
> ...


It's pretty funny that you have to resort to calling me a pothead, because you know that your intellectually bankrupt and nonsensical argument doesn't stand up to the test of common sense.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I did not post anything wrong, and I know that as a fact.


Right, because you "know" what you are talking about. 



> ...what I have said and posted in this thread is 100% correct, and anyone can see that.


Perhaps anyone who is willing to ignore glaring contradictions in your statements. Perhaps anyone who thinks that name calling and personal attacks are a valid substitute for logically valid arguments.

Bigg's Axiom: Bigg knows. He just does, and anyone can see that.

Bigg's Glossary:

"slimy lawyer" -- how you describe an opponent who understands formal logic, and points out that ad hominem attacks are no substitute for valid logic.

"intellectually dishonest" -- what Bigg calls an opponent who points out glaring contradictions in Bigg's statements.

I'm done here. You dare to lecture me on "intellectual honesty" when roughly half of your argument boils down to nothing more than name calling, personal attacks, and insisting you are always 100% correct with zero exceptions. I started with some respect for you, but I can see now that any respect for you was completely unwarranted. I will not continue a discussion with someone that I can no longer respect.

If you had a factual, logical, truthful defence for your position, you really wouldn't need to continually resort to name calling and personal attacks. If you had the requisite technical background for your professed knowledge, you would be able to calmly explain your position with engineering and/or mathematical precision. In short, you talk the talk by insisting that you "know what you're talking about", but you don't walk the walk. You are a complete poser.

Your barrage of attacks has only served to convince me that arguing with you is an utter and complete waste of time. Like my father used to say, "Son, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig!".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

snerd said:


> Right...


More of the same Bull****. Blah, blah, blah. Trying to defend your indefensible nonsense, slimy lawyering, and just outright bull****.


----------

