Does anyone have one of these TV sockets?

[David]

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
Loading Image...
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2. They also told me that the satellite
should work but it was installed many years ago and most residents use
broadband to watch TV (how they can afford terabytes of data is beyond
my comprehension as we are all underclass old gits in here).
They said that I can connect a Freeview box to the TV socket and any
satellite boxes that support Astra to any of the SAT sockets.
But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong? Or have they told me porkies?
I don't have a TV set but I have a laptop. I wonder if I could connect
a USB dongle to any on the sockets from the laptop and then watch TV
with vlc.
I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.

HTH


Dave R

[Woody]

Post by David

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2. They also told me that the satellite
should work but it was installed many years ago and most residents use
broadband to watch TV (how they can afford terabytes of data is beyond
my comprehension as we are all underclass old gits in here).
They said that I can connect a Freeview box to the TV socket and any
satellite boxes that support Astra to any of the SAT sockets.
But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong? Or have they told me porkies?
I don't have a TV set but I have a laptop. I wonder if I could connect
a USB dongle to any on the sockets from the laptop and then watch TV
with vlc.
I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.

The plate will be fed by three cables, one feeds the TV and FM outlets,
the other two feed (independently) the S1 and S2 outlets.

Sky boxes normally had two feeds from the dish so that two programmes
can be recorded at once, or so that you can watch one feed and record
from the other. It does not matter which way around they are used or
connected.

You can connect your Freeview TV to the TV outlet and your radio to the
FM outlet - assuming the provider has wired both as they should be both
TV and radio will work.

Looking at the picture it does suggest that there may have been water
ingress which has caused tarnishing of the sockets. There is no voltage
of any type on the four outlets so you can detach the socket plate from
the wall, make sure all internal connections are good and clean, and
give the four outlets a good rub over with very fine wire wool. Then
blow the remnant wool dust out of the connections to avoid an
possibility of minor short circuits.

Sky now feed TV via broadband so the S1 and S2 are superfluous, but you
can if you wish still use the TV and FM outlets. In the halfway house
Sky fed both sockets from the dish but using a wideband LNB (the box on
the end of the dish stalk). With the appropriate Sky box you could watch
or record a larger number of programmes simultaneously but I'm not sure
if such boxes are still available. (I would guess they may be as many
rural users will not have access to broadband at sufficient speed.)

HTH

[SteveW]

Post by Woody

Post by David

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2. They also told me that the satellite
should work but it was installed many years ago and most residents use
broadband to watch TV (how they can afford terabytes of data is beyond
my comprehension as we are all underclass old gits in here).
They said that I can connect a Freeview box to the TV socket and any
satellite boxes that support Astra to any of the SAT sockets.
But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong? Or have they told me porkies?
I don't  have a TV set but I have a laptop. I wonder if I could connect
a USB dongle to any on the sockets from the laptop and then watch TV
with vlc.
I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.

The plate will be fed by three cables, one feeds the TV and FM outlets,
the other two feed (independently) the S1 and S2 outlets.

Most of the plates I've seen (and indeed can buy from Toolstation and
Screwfix) are not like that. They are designed to use just two cables
and you combine the TV and FM ones onto the Sat 1 cable, before
distributing around the house.

You can see that
https://www.screwfix.com/p/contactum-media-modular-coaxial-tv-fm-twin-satellite-socket-black/623rr
has only two cable inlets.

Indeed I have 7 of them installed around the house. Initially they were
fed from a multi-switch which combined them itself and sent Satellite,
TV, FM signals on all of its outputs. But now we use a unicable system
and they are combined directly onto the single downfeed from the LNB,
just before splitting around the house.

[Andy Burns]

Post by SteveW

Post by Woody
The plate will be fed by three cables, one feeds the TV and FM
outlets, the other two feed (independently) the S1 and S2 outlets.

Most of the plates I've seen (and indeed can buy from Toolstation and
Screwfix) are not like that. They are designed to use just two cables
and you combine the TV and FM ones onto the Sat 1 cable, before
distributing around the house.

The faceplates with three cables are SAT1+TV+FM down, SAT2 down and a
RETURN up to the distribution amp to allow e.g. watching a DVR on any
set (together with magic eye RF remote) but that's getting a bit old-hat
now ...

[David Woolley]

but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2

There is probably no static difference. That generation of of satellite
system used signalling from the TV to select subsets of the satellite
channels based on polarisation, and, I seem to recall, frequency range.
With the terrestrial TV socket, you can, with the right equipment,
connect multiple receivers, but, for the satellite system, each
connected TV needs its own socket. (Behind the scene, there are
probably cables for all four combinations of frequency an polarisation.)

But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong?

I don't know if it is still working, but what matters is not the actual
satellite, but where it is in the sky, i.e. to where the dish is
pointing. That shouldn't have changed, for the satellites primarily
serving the UK English language market. Note that there are actually
clusters of satellites, so you may get signals from more than one.

I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?

At best, you will only be able to view free to air signals, and probably
not those that are encrypted (e.g. because they share with a satellite
that is used by Sky - I'm not sure if that is currently an issue).

[Woody]

Post by David

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2. They also told me that the satellite
should work but it was installed many years ago and most residents use
broadband to watch TV (how they can afford terabytes of data is beyond
my comprehension as we are all underclass old gits in here).
They said that I can connect a Freeview box to the TV socket and any
satellite boxes that support Astra to any of the SAT sockets.
But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong? Or have they told me porkies?
I don't have a TV set but I have a laptop. I wonder if I could connect
a USB dongle to any on the sockets from the laptop and then watch TV
with vlc.
I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.

The plate will be fed by three cables, one feeds the TV and FM outlets,
the other two feed (independently) the S1 and S2 outlets.

Sky boxes normally had two feeds from the dish so that two programmes
can be recorded at once, or so that you can watch one feed and record
from the other. It does not matter which way around they are used or
connected.

You can connect your Freeview TV to the TV outlet and your radio to the
FM outlet - assuming the provider has wired both as they should be both
TV and radio will work.

Looking at the picture it does suggest that there may have been water
ingress which has caused tarnishing of the sockets. There is no voltage
of any type on the four outlets so you can detach the socket plate from
the wall, make sure all internal connections are good and clean, and
give the four outlets a good rub over with very fine wire wool. Then
blow the remnant wool dust out of the connections to avoid an
possibility of minor short circuits.
You can of course replace the socket plate completely. Homebase are
doing so excess plates at around a tenner.

Sky now feed TV via broadband so the S1 and S2 are superfluous, but you
can if you wish still use the TV and FM outlets. In the halfway house
Sky fed both sockets from the dish but using a wideband LNB (the box on
the end of the dish stalk). With the appropriate Sky box you could watch
or record a larger number of programmes simultaneously but I'm not sure
if such boxes are still available. (I would guess they may be as many
rural users will not have access to broadband at sufficient speed.)

HTH

[Simon Ferrol]

Thank you all for your replies. I have a better understanding of the
topic now.

SF

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by David

I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.
HTH
Dave R

I still have a PCI satellite card. Used to watch freesat and free to air
sky. More selection than freeview.

I am fairly sure USB DVB-S dongles are available and many players
support them

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dvb-s2-usb/s?k=dvb-s2+usb

[NY]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by David

I know that there are cheap USB dongles for Freeview but are there any
for Astra, assuming it is still working?
I feel stupid for asking these questions but I haven't had a TV set for
more than 20 years.

Cross posted to uk.tech.digital-tv which may be a better group for this
question.
HTH
Dave R

I still have a PCI satellite card. Used to watch freesat and free to air
sky. More selection than freeview.
I am fairly sure USB DVB-S dongles are available and many players
support them
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dvb-s2-usb/s?k=dvb-s2+usb

I use a PCTV 491e DVB-S2/USB tuner and a Hauppauge WinTV Dual DVB-T2/USB
tuner on my Raspberry Pi with TVHeadend software. Works a treat!

I could in theory use a second 491e, but of the two that I bought, one
has older firmware which is supported and the other has newer firmware
which is not. The newer one still works with PCTV's own software on
Windows. However to use a second tuner, I'd need to disconnect the cable
from the TV to drive the tuner.

[alan_m]

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2.

Assuming that it's not wired for sky Q its just two independent outputs
from an LNB or some form of distribution box. Many satellite boxes
require more than one satellite input to be able to watch one channel
whilst recording another

They said that I can connect a Freeview box to the TV socket and any
satellite boxes that support Astra to any of the SAT sockets.
But I have googled around and it looks like Astra is no longer working,
or am I completely wrong? Or have they told me porkies?

Sky and Freeview use the Astra satellites. The Astra satellites at 28.2
East are working.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Many satellite boxes require more than one satellite input to be able to
watch one channel whilst recording another

AFAIK *all* of them do unless its on the same MUX.

The tv receiver sends signals up the coax to select the correct MUX
frequency. The dish will have more than one low noise down converter in
it and more than one coax going to it, although ISTR that someone
developed a way to have more than one signal going down and up the coax
after I played with it

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Many satellite boxes require more than one satellite input to be able
to watch one channel whilst recording another

AFAIK *all* of them do unless its on the same MUX.

Boxes that support Unicable LNBs and have FBC tuner modules can receive
multiple channels on different transponders (MUX) via a single cable
from the LNB to a single input on the box.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The tv receiver sends signals up the coax to select the correct MUX
frequency. The dish will have more than one low noise down converter in
it and more than one coax going to it, although ISTR that someone
developed a way to have more than one signal going down and up the coax
after I played with it

Sky Q boxes have 12(?) tuners fed from two cables. Unicable II LNBs can
typically feed 32 tuners via a single cable from the LNB.

[Woody]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Many satellite boxes require more than one satellite input to be able
to watch one channel whilst recording another

AFAIK *all* of them do unless its on the same MUX.
The tv receiver sends signals up the coax to select the correct MUX
frequency. The dish will have more than one low noise down converter in
it and more than one coax going to it, although ISTR that someone
developed a way to have more than one signal going down and up the coax
after I played with it

There are four options for any single LNB - horizontal or vertical
polarity, and low group or high group frequencies.

Can't remember which is which off hand, but one pair is selected by the
presence or absence of a 22KHz audio tone on the cable, and the other
pair are selected by the voltage going up the cable, 13V or 18V.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

horizontal or vertical polarity

Polarisation.

[Max Demian]

Post by alan_m

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2.

Assuming that it's not wired for sky Q its just two independent outputs
from an LNB or some form of distribution box. Many satellite boxes
require more than one satellite input to be able to watch one channel
whilst recording another

Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

[Jeff Gaines]

Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work as
satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and modern
ones can electrically select polarisation

[SteveW]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this
work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and modern
ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band for
each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high and low
frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two cables to give
the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just Horizontal
on one and Vertical on the other.

And the Unicable ones allow everthing for up to 32 independent tuners to
be sent on a single cable.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this
work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band for
each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high and low
frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two cables to give
the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just Horizontal
on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can be
hi/lo vertical horizontal.

Post by SteveW
And the Unicable ones allow everthing for up to 32 independent tuners to
be sent on a single cable.

Any LNB can receive any signal. However multplexing more than one
multiplex down the same cable is a layer of sophistication above that,
as is controlling each one.

And I don't think satellite dongles can do that.

[Andy Burns]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can be
hi/lo vertical horizontal.

They are on older LNBs, but the wideband LNBs are different, each cable
carries hi and lo together, one cable is horizontal, the other is vertical.

[Bob Latham]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.

As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.

Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)


Bob.

[Fredxx]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

It's not just polarisation, but a Sky box selects on of two wavebands.
Hence if you are indeed correct I would have expect 4 feeds, 2
polarisations and 2 bands.

Are you sure TNP isn't right, for a surprising exception to the rule
that he's invariably wrong?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Fredxx
It's not just polarisation, but a Sky box selects on of two wavebands.
Hence if you are indeed correct I would have expect 4 feeds, 2
polarisations and 2 bands.

For old-style installations (sky or otherwise) with a so-called
universal LNB, that's true; but as pointed out several times by several
people in this thread, there *is* no high/low band selection with a
wideband LNB because the band is wider.

Post by Fredxx
Are you sure TNP isn't right

Yes.

[Fredxx]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Fredxx
It's not just polarisation, but a Sky box selects on of two wavebands.
Hence if you are indeed correct I would have expect 4 feeds, 2
polarisations and 2 bands.

For old-style installations (sky or otherwise) with a so-called
universal LNB, that's true;  but as pointed out several times by several
people in this thread, there *is* no high/low band selection with a
wideband LNB because the band is wider.

Thanks for clarification.

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Fredxx
Are you sure TNP isn't right

Yes.

As per typical.

[alan_m]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

It's not just polarisation, but a Sky box selects on of two wavebands.
Hence if you are indeed correct I would have expect 4 feeds, 2
polarisations and 2 bands.
Are you sure TNP isn't right, for a surprising exception to the rule
that he's invariably wrong?

He perhaps seems to misunderstand both sky Q wideband LNBs and the
different technology of Unicable LNBs

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m

Post by Fredxx

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

It's not just polarisation, but a Sky box selects on of two wavebands.
Hence if you are indeed correct I would have expect 4 feeds, 2
polarisations and 2 bands.
Are you sure TNP isn't right, for a surprising exception to the rule
that he's invariably wrong?

He perhaps seems to misunderstand both sky Q wideband LNBs and the
different technology of Unicable LNBs

I think the confusion arises out of the 'Sky Q uses wifi frequencies and
old TV frequencies to receive the satellties on'.


It doesn't.
What is happening apparently is that instead of tuning the LNBs to
downconvert to a fixed IF they are down converting to a mish mash of
spectrum, in the range up to 2Ghz, which is a pretty crap idea, and then
doing the final mux selection out of that mess.

The claim that they then only have two actual LNBs - horizontal and
vertical - may be true, but there is no reason not to MUX them down one
cable

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is happening apparently is that instead of tuning the LNBs to
downconvert to a  fixed IF they are down converting to a mish mash of
spectrum, in the range up to 2Ghz, which is a pretty crap idea, and then
doing the final mux selection out of that mess.
The claim that they then only have two actual LNBs - horizontal and
vertical - may be true, but there is no reason not to MUX them down one
cable

It may be a crap idea but it works for them, possibly with the added
advantage that it keeps this proprietary solution unique to them. If a
customer wants to switch away from the Sky satellite subscription
service but still wants the free to air channels from satellite then a
change of LNB may/will be required. (I do believe there is a single
Freesat box that now supports the Sky Q "wideband" LNB).

The unicable LNB does effectively MUX multiple transponder info down a
single cable. There are typically 32 user bands in a unicable II LNB
that can be connected to 32 tuners with each tuner selecting which
satellite transponder is allocated to that tuners user band*. If the
user changes TV channels the satellite transponder allocation to that
user band can/will be changed. The control up the cable is now digital
and not the high/low voltage or the presence or not of a 22KHz tone
required for a traditional universal LNB.

For a few years now many non-Sky satellite receivers, including those at
the cheap end of the market, have supported Unicable LNBs even though
they may not fully exploit the full capability of the technology.

Although a unicable LNB may only have one physical output requiring one
down lead cable it needs to be distributed to multiple tuners. This can
be achieved by the use of cheap (under a fiver) splitters. Some of the
medium to higher end modern satellite receivers have the equivalent of 8
tuners but with only one or two inputs and with these the routing is
achieved internal to the box.

*This is the default mode of operation if you are buying one of these
LNBs but with additional associated equipment some can be re-programmed
to work in a different manner where each user band is allocated to a
fixed satellite transponder.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

Post by alan_m
It may be a crap idea but it works for them, possibly with the
added advantage that it keeps this proprietary solution unique to
them. If a customer wants to switch away from the Sky satellite
subscription service but still wants the free to air channels
from satellite then a change of LNB may/will be required.

The new Sky Q LNBs were designed for functionality, not for anti-completion.
No other satellite boxes can record six channels at once, while viewing three
more in different rooms.

I had one of the first Sky Q boxes in August 2016, and Sky replaced my old quad
LNB feeding two boxes, with a quad Sky Q LNB that has both wideband and
switched band outputs, so now feeds an ancient Humax as well as the Sky Q box.


I believe the four LNB outputs are auto switching, they recognise the type of
satellite tuner they are connected to, and behave accordingly. But I've not
touched it since installation, just works. I initially had two Sky Mini boxes
connected over ethernet as well.

But

[SH]

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is happening apparently is that instead of tuning the LNBs to
downconvert to a  fixed IF they are down converting to a mish mash of
spectrum, in the range up to 2Ghz, which is a pretty crap idea, and
then doing the final mux selection out of that mess.
The claim that they then only have two actual LNBs - horizontal and
vertical - may be true, but there is no reason not to MUX them down
one cable

It may be a crap idea but it works for them, possibly with the added
advantage that it keeps this proprietary solution unique to them. If a
customer wants to switch away from the Sky satellite subscription
service but still wants the free to air channels from satellite then a
change of LNB may/will be required. (I do believe there is a single
Freesat box that now supports the Sky Q "wideband" LNB).
The unicable LNB does effectively MUX multiple transponder info down a
single cable. There are typically 32 user bands in a unicable II LNB
that can be connected to 32 tuners with each tuner selecting which
satellite transponder is allocated to that tuners user band*. If the
user changes TV channels the satellite transponder allocation to that
user band can/will be changed. The control up the cable is now digital
and not the high/low voltage or the presence or not of a 22KHz tone
required for a traditional universal LNB.
For a few years now many non-Sky satellite receivers, including those at
the cheap end of the market, have supported Unicable LNBs even though
they may not fully exploit the full capability of the technology.
Although a unicable LNB may only have one physical output requiring one
down lead cable it needs to be distributed to multiple tuners. This can
be achieved by the use of cheap (under a fiver) splitters. Some of the
medium to higher end modern satellite receivers have the equivalent of 8
tuners but with only one or two inputs and with these the routing is
achieved internal to the box.
*This is the default mode of operation if you are buying one of these
LNBs but with additional associated equipment some can be re-programmed
to work in a different manner where each user band is allocated to a
fixed satellite transponder.

how does Unicable LNBs work when you have a multiple LNB multifeed
satellite dish like me where I have Astra 1, Astra 2, Hotbird, Eutelsat
5A and Hispasat on a Wavefrontier Toroidal T90?

[Andy Burns]

Post by SH
how does Unicable LNBs work when you have a multiple LNB multifeed
satellite dish

I don't know, does it work that way at all? Or require a cable per LNB
on different orbital positions?

I don't know much about unicable, it almost seems the opposite approach
to wideband, breaks the downlink into small sub-bands which can each be
mixed down from wherever in the ~10GHz band to one of 32 frequency
"slots", lots of generating suitable LO frequencies and frequency
mixing, lots of communication between LNB and receivers ...

[alan_m]

Post by SH
how does Unicable LNBs work when you have a multiple LNB multifeed
satellite dish like me where I have Astra 1, Astra 2, Hotbird, Eutelsat
5A and Hispasat on a Wavefrontier Toroidal T90?

From everything I've read on satellite forums the Unicable LNB is more
suited to fixed dish/fixed satellite and not recommended for dish
rotation, but possibly the recommendation is for when LNB may be feeding
multiple receivers in a house with perhaps different people controlling
each box.

My understanding is that a Unicable II LNB is equivalent to a
traditional Quattro LNB with additional inbuilt sophisticated control
switching/MUX. Similar in function to a LNB with add-on
distribution/switching hardware but all packaged within the LNB at a
lower cost (£50 ish). The receiver box needs to be able to control the
LNB but many non-Sky modern boxes already do.

The advantages it's being sold on:
Ease of distribution. One cable from the LNB and then the use of cheap
splitters to provide inputs to multiple reciever boxes.
With some receivers now having the equivalent of 8+ tuners a single
cable from the LNB can feed then all. No need for 8 cables from the LNB
or some extra switching hardware. (Some box with 8 tuners may require 2
inputs but easily achieved with a cheap 2 way splitter behind the box).


I'm not familiar with your setup but a quick google suggests a fixed
dish with multiple LNBs ???
Again, I don't know the answer to your question but as the box would
need to control LNBs up the cable it would need to change the method of
control if the input was from a Unicable LNB or a Universal.

[SteveW]

Post by SH

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is happening apparently is that instead of tuning the LNBs to
downconvert to a  fixed IF they are down converting to a mish mash of
spectrum, in the range up to 2Ghz, which is a pretty crap idea, and
then doing the final mux selection out of that mess.
The claim that they then only have two actual LNBs - horizontal and
vertical - may be true, but there is no reason not to MUX them down
one cable

It may be a crap idea but it works for them, possibly with the added
advantage that it keeps this proprietary solution unique to them. If a
customer wants to switch away from the Sky satellite subscription
service but still wants the free to air channels from satellite then a
change of LNB may/will be required. (I do believe there is a single
Freesat box that now supports the Sky Q "wideband" LNB).
The unicable LNB does effectively MUX multiple transponder info down a
single cable. There are typically 32 user bands in a unicable II LNB
that can be connected to 32 tuners with each tuner selecting which
satellite transponder is allocated to that tuners user band*. If the
user changes TV channels the satellite transponder allocation to that
user band can/will be changed. The control up the cable is now digital
and not the high/low voltage or the presence or not of a 22KHz tone
required for a traditional universal LNB.
For a few years now many non-Sky satellite receivers, including those
at the cheap end of the market, have supported Unicable LNBs even
though they may not fully exploit the full capability of the technology.
Although a unicable LNB may only have one physical output requiring
one down lead cable it needs to be distributed to multiple tuners.
This can be achieved by the use of cheap (under a fiver) splitters.
Some of the medium to higher end modern satellite receivers have the
equivalent of 8 tuners but with only one or two inputs and with these
the routing is achieved internal to the box.
*This is the default mode of operation if you are buying one of these
LNBs but with additional associated equipment some can be
re-programmed to work in a different manner where each user band is
allocated to a fixed satellite transponder.

how does Unicable LNBs work when you have a multiple LNB multifeed
satellite dish like me where I have Astra 1, Astra 2, Hotbird, Eutelsat
5A and Hispasat on a Wavefrontier Toroidal T90?

I don't know, but I'd assume that you'd have to use DiSEqC switching. to
switch between physical LNBs.

[SH]

Post by SteveW

Post by SH

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is happening apparently is that instead of tuning the LNBs to
downconvert to a  fixed IF they are down converting to a mish mash
of spectrum, in the range up to 2Ghz, which is a pretty crap idea,
and then doing the final mux selection out of that mess.
The claim that they then only have two actual LNBs - horizontal and
vertical - may be true, but there is no reason not to MUX them down
one cable

It may be a crap idea but it works for them, possibly with the added
advantage that it keeps this proprietary solution unique to them. If
a customer wants to switch away from the Sky satellite subscription
service but still wants the free to air channels from satellite then
a change of LNB may/will be required. (I do believe there is a single
Freesat box that now supports the Sky Q "wideband" LNB).
The unicable LNB does effectively MUX multiple transponder info down
a single cable. There are typically 32 user bands in a unicable II
LNB that can be connected to 32 tuners with each tuner selecting
which satellite transponder is allocated to that tuners user band*.
If the user changes TV channels the satellite transponder allocation
to that user band can/will be changed. The control up the cable is
now digital and not the high/low voltage or the presence or not of a
22KHz tone required for a traditional universal LNB.
For a few years now many non-Sky satellite receivers, including those
at the cheap end of the market, have supported Unicable LNBs even
though they may not fully exploit the full capability of the technology.
Although a unicable LNB may only have one physical output requiring
one down lead cable it needs to be distributed to multiple tuners.
This can be achieved by the use of cheap (under a fiver) splitters.
Some of the medium to higher end modern satellite receivers have the
equivalent of 8 tuners but with only one or two inputs and with these
the routing is achieved internal to the box.
*This is the default mode of operation if you are buying one of these
LNBs but with additional associated equipment some can be
re-programmed to work in a different manner where each user band is
allocated to a fixed satellite transponder.

how does Unicable LNBs work when you have a multiple LNB multifeed
satellite dish like me where I have Astra 1, Astra 2, Hotbird,
Eutelsat 5A and Hispasat on a Wavefrontier Toroidal T90?

I don't know, but I'd assume that you'd have to use DiSEqC switching. to
switch between physical LNBs.

which is what I use, 4 quattro LNBs, with 16 coaxes feeding a 17x32
multswitch which then feeds 32 wall sockets around the house

and the 5th Quattro feeds a 5x32 multiswitch (which also has freeview,
FM, DAB and CCTV fed into) and thence onto 32 wall sockets around house.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

I looked and found no one but you saying this.

Ther is no reason why they should split polarisation across cables,. No
one ever has

The LNBS have always ben able to select either.,

Post by Bob Latham
Bob.

[Bob Latham]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to
allow *simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of
which can be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire
horizontal signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no
switching is required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all
signals simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

I looked and found no one but you saying this.

There are several people saying this, including one quoted in my post!

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Ther is no reason why they should split polarisation across
cables,. No one ever has

In old and new Sky digital systems they always split H & V because
they are so close together frequency wise they are tricky to split
apart again. In the older system they were split by time ie. a cable
could be either H or V (never both) and was switched under control of
the box. In newer system no switching. The two cables are fixed and
always the same, the entire band H on the one cable and entire band
on V on the other.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The LNBS have always ben able to select either.,

SkyQ systems don't do that. but please continue to double down.

Bob.

[SteveW]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Bob Latham

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW
But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency
band for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of
the high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only
needing two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

Correct.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

I'm afraid not.
As stated above, with SkyQ one cable delivers the entire horizontal
signal and the other the entire vertical signal. no switching is
required in the LNB and the Sky Q box can see all signals
simultaneously to feed it's 12 or so tuners.
Very art student of you not know this TNP, :-)

I looked and found no one but you saying this.
Ther is no reason why they should split polarisation across cables,. No
one ever has
The LNBS have always ben able to select either.,

May I direct you to:

https://www.smartaerials.co.uk/blog/what-is-difference-between-a-sky-q-and-quad-universal-lnb

[SteveW]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this
work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band for
each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high and
low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two cables to
give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can be
hi/lo vertical horizontal.

Not with SKY-Q. They are termed wideband LNBs, as each cable carries the
whole bandwith, all the time, so there is no hi/lo at all, just
horizontal on one and vertical on the other. Between them they carry all
the multiplexes simultaneously.

[Max Demian]

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this
work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band
for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high
and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two
cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can be
hi/lo vertical horizontal.

Not with SKY-Q. They are termed wideband LNBs, as each cable carries the
whole bandwith, all the time, so there is no hi/lo at all, just
horizontal on one and vertical on the other. Between them they carry all
the multiplexes simultaneously.

They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of the
Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Max Demian

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does
this work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band
for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high
and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two
cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can be
hi/lo vertical horizontal.

Not with SKY-Q. They are termed wideband LNBs, as each cable carries
the whole bandwith, all the time, so there is no hi/lo at all, just
horizontal on one and vertical on the other. Between them they carry
all the multiplexes simultaneously.

They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of the
Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no 'knowledge'
of polarization - only frequency.

[Max Demian]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does
this  work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band
for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the high
and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing two
cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

 Not with SKY-Q. They are termed wideband LNBs, as each cable carries
the  whole bandwith, all the time, so there is no hi/lo at all, just
horizontal on one and vertical on the other. Between them they carry
all  the multiplexes simultaneously.

They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no 'knowledge'
of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by SteveW

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does
this  work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.
*All* LNBS are tunable entities across a band of frequencies and
modern ones can electrically select polarisation

But the old LNBs had to select between high and low frequency band
for each output, whereas the SKY-Q ones cover the whole of the
high and low frequency bands at the same time. Hence only needing
two cables to give the four options simultaneously
(Hi-Horizontal/Lo-Horizontal/Hi-Vertical/Lo-Vertical) as just
Horizontal on one and Vertical on the other.

I think you misunderstand. The two cables are simply there to allow
*simultaneous* reception of two *multiplexes*, either of which can
be hi/lo vertical horizontal.

 Not with SKY-Q. They are termed wideband LNBs, as each cable
carries the  whole bandwith, all the time, so there is no hi/lo at
all, just horizontal on one and vertical on the other. Between them
they carry all  the multiplexes simultaneously.

They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no 'knowledge'
of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.

Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences

DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

[Max Demian]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.

Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

[Tweed]

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

[David Woolley]

Post by Tweed
I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?

Actually, in the 1980s, when the basic research on passive optical
network home delivery was going on, the target application was TV. That
was about a decade before the final September started.

[Max Demian]

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and
floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial
connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

[MikeS]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and
floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial
connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

It depends what you mean by "neatly replaced".

Our block was built with a communal aerial system having TV/VHF outlets
on inner walls of the living rooms. Many years ago we had it upgraded to
a new distribution system (satellite/terrestrial TV and DAB/VHF), still
in the loft area. The cables were neatly run around outside the block
with outlets on outer walls of the living rooms. Likewise Virgin neatly
added their cabling by running up the outside of the block to each floor
then distributing along communal hallways to individual flats which
decided to subscribe. New residents don't even notice the cables unless
they are pointed out.

The BT phones still use the original analogue cabling with main sockets
in the centre of flats. Openreach have no plans to imminently install
fibre but doubtless they could use similar approaches to do it neatly.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by MikeS

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down
converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls
and floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial
aerial connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

It depends what you mean by "neatly replaced".
Our block was built with a communal aerial system having TV/VHF outlets
on inner walls of the living rooms. Many years ago we had it upgraded to
a new distribution system (satellite/terrestrial TV and DAB/VHF), still
in the loft area. The cables were neatly run around outside the block
with outlets on outer walls of the living rooms. Likewise Virgin neatly
added their cabling by running up the outside of the block to each floor
then distributing along communal hallways to individual flats which
decided to subscribe. New residents don't even notice the cables unless
they are pointed out.
The BT phones still use the original analogue cabling with main sockets
in the centre of flats. Openreach have no plans to imminently install
fibre but doubtless they could use similar approaches to do it neatly.

The way in flats seems to be to take it up the stairwell/lifts to each
floor and break out into individual dwellings from there.

[Tweed]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Max Demian
They don't seem to mind which cable is connected to which socket of
the Sky Q box, so I assume it can work it out which is which.

This is because the coax and the tuners in the STB have no
'knowledge' of polarization - only frequency.

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of
frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one
polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of
reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and
floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial
connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

Regardless, most people will want a fibre connection and these are being
installed, even in blocks of flats. Give it another 5 years of so and most
UK properties will have access to a fibre connection. Of course there will
be exceptions and outliers but that doesn’t destroy the business case for
fibre distribution of TV.

[Max Demian]

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and
floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial
connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

Regardless, most people will want a fibre connection and these are being
installed, even in blocks of flats. Give it another 5 years of so and most
UK properties will have access to a fibre connection. Of course there will
be exceptions and outliers but that doesn’t destroy the business case for
fibre distribution of TV.

FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

[Tweed]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV?
Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left
for those applications where there is no better alternative.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely
populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and
floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial
connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

Regardless, most people will want a fibre connection and these are being
installed, even in blocks of flats. Give it another 5 years of so and most
UK properties will have access to a fibre connection. Of course there will
be exceptions and outliers but that doesn’t destroy the business case for
fibre distribution of TV.

FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

Expensive to maintain low reliability legacy system. There’s more to FTTH
than just speed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

[Joe]

On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

I think back in the days of mainframes it was 4k...

But yes...

Give a programmer a tool to write code faster and he will simply write
more of it.

[Fredxx]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

Bill Gates has denied saying anything like that, and claims to have said
the diametric opposite.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

Bill Gates has denied saying anything like that, and claims to have said
the diametric opposite.

And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in
each iteration.

[Tweed]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

Bill Gates has denied saying anything like that, and claims to have said
the diametric opposite.

And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in
each iteration.

It does more though. The functionality of modern Windows is way greater
than the early versions. Try watching YouTube on Windows 3.1

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 16 May 2024 07:59:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeff Gaines
And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in
each iteration.

It does more though. The functionality of modern Windows is way greater
than the early versions. Try watching YouTube on Windows 3.1

I routinely watch YouTube (and many other services) on Amazon's
version of Android on a device not much bigger than my thumb.

I can also watch it on Linux Mint, which takes up a fraction of the
storage space that Windows occupies.

Every new iteration or update of Windows makes it take up more space,
changes things I was already accustomed to, and adds new things I have
to configure or disable before I can carry on using my computer for
the same things as before. It makes me wonder how many of the things
that Windows can do actually need doing.

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 16 May 2024 07:59:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeff Gaines
And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in
each iteration.

It does more though. The functionality of modern Windows is way greater
than the early versions. Try watching YouTube on Windows 3.1

I routinely watch YouTube (and many other services) on Amazon's
version of Android on a device not much bigger than my thumb.
I can also watch it on Linux Mint, which takes up a fraction of the
storage space that Windows occupies.
Every new iteration or update of Windows makes it take up more space,
changes things I was already accustomed to, and adds new things I have
to configure or disable before I can carry on using my computer for
the same things as before. It makes me wonder how many of the things
that Windows can do actually need doing.
Rod.

You won’t get very far doing 3D CAD on a Firestick.

[Paul]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:38:19 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian
FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,
640G will be insufficient for Windows...

Bill Gates has denied saying anything like that, and claims to have said the diametric opposite.

And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in each iteration.

350MB kernel (I've run Win10 early edition on 256MB, so 350MB is a "generous" allocation to prevent crashing)
2.3GB (Allocation for mini-OS sandbox image, for running things in sandbox. Not always enabled)
8.0GB (New AI allocation, Microsoft "assumes" AI will always run locally, like for voice command.)

And that gives the 1GB, 4GB, 16GB "requirements for a new PC".

A 16GB PC, should have 5GB of RAM for the user to use. That
is when the "Win11 AI version" comes out.

If you want to lock the computer down to the current OS release,
you can try "incontrol.exe". For example, I'm 22631.3593 W11 23H2, and
I'm locked down to 23H2, so the next Upgrade cannot come in.

https://www.grc.com/incontrol.htm

Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way
of reaching globally distributed audiences
DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from
wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable
- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like
Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.
Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I don't think your response is even worth debunking

[alan_m]

On 11/05/2024 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


No, Sky Q boxes have the equivalent of 12 tuners. They can decode
simultaneously 12 different transponders (MUXs allowing a MINIMUM of 12
different TV channels (many more if the additional required TV channels
are on the same 12 transponders)

Post by SteveW
And the Unicable ones allow everthing for up to 32 independent tuners
to be sent on a single cable.

Any LNB can receive any signal.  However multplexing more than one
multiplex down the same cable is a layer of sophistication above that,
as is controlling each one.

Unicable II LNBs can be simultaneously controlled by 32 boxes or fewer
boxes with multiple tuners (typical limit of 32 tuners) and use only one
cable from the LNB.

And I don't think  satellite dongles can do that.

Possibly not, but the technology has moved on a lot in the past few
years with affordable satellite boxes.

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this
work as satellite signals have four flavours, with
horizontal/vertical polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

Not really.

Yes really

[alan_m]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

They have a wideband LNB.

One cable carries all horizontal and the other all vertical. They
"steal" the frequencies for Terrestrial TV and FM/DAB down the cable so
multiplex face-plates no longer work with Sky Q. It is an attempt by
Sky to make their system unique so that they have limited third party
competition. The rest of the non-sky world seem to have adopted a
different wideband LNB technology.

[Tweed]

Post by Max Demian

Post by alan_m

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2.

Assuming that it's not wired for sky Q its just two independent outputs
from an LNB or some form of distribution box. Many satellite boxes
require more than one satellite input to be able to watch one channel
whilst recording another

Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

https://www.smartaerials.co.uk/blog/what-is-difference-between-a-sky-q-and-quad-universal-lnb

The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI. Because it is “nicking”
space that it did not used to have it has a far greater bandwidth for all
of its services so there is no longer the need a high and low band.

The Sky Q LNB itself has two outputs which are not the same. One is a
Horizontal output and the other a vertical output. This alone will give box
almost 5Ghz of bandwidth which is massive. These cables are then connected
to your Sky Q box and any additional Sky multi-room boxes are installed
with a wireless connection (not via the WIFI router) and the secondary box.
Obviously WIFI can experience black spots on larger buildings so it is also
possible to install the secondary Sky multi-room box with a data cable.

Because of all this no switching at the LNB is required at all it already
has access to all of the channels. This makes it far simpler to add
additional tuners and the Sky Q silver actually has 12 tuners! All with no
extra cables installed.

I’m sure the enthusiasts among you will be thinking. Hang on a minute no
switching, we can just split the signals now unlike changing the LNB and
theoretically yes if you installed correctly set up diode protected
splitters, although you would have to install two splitters no one for the
horizontal and vertical bands but you could only ever connect another main
Sky Q box – not something that is likely to be done at a single address.

Another major point to make is that with a Sky Q box can never be connected
on ‘single feed mode’ as it would miss out on either the horizontal or
vertical signals

[SteveW]

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by alan_m

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2.

Assuming that it's not wired for sky Q its just two independent outputs
from an LNB or some form of distribution box. Many satellite boxes
require more than one satellite input to be able to watch one channel
whilst recording another

Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

https://www.smartaerials.co.uk/blog/what-is-difference-between-a-sky-q-and-quad-universal-lnb
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI. Because it is “nicking”
space that it did not used to have it has a far greater bandwidth for all
of its services so there is no longer the need a high and low band.
The Sky Q LNB itself has two outputs which are not the same. One is a
Horizontal output and the other a vertical output. This alone will give box
almost 5Ghz of bandwidth which is massive. These cables are then connected
to your Sky Q box and any additional Sky multi-room boxes are installed
with a wireless connection (not via the WIFI router) and the secondary box.
Obviously WIFI can experience black spots on larger buildings so it is also
possible to install the secondary Sky multi-room box with a data cable.
Because of all this no switching at the LNB is required at all it already
has access to all of the channels. This makes it far simpler to add
additional tuners and the Sky Q silver actually has 12 tuners! All with no
extra cables installed.
I’m sure the enthusiasts among you will be thinking. Hang on a minute no
switching, we can just split the signals now unlike changing the LNB and
theoretically yes if you installed correctly set up diode protected
splitters, although you would have to install two splitters no one for the
horizontal and vertical bands but you could only ever connect another main
Sky Q box – not something that is likely to be done at a single address.

But for Freesat or other non-SKY boxes, you can now use Unicable LNBs,
which can feed all the signals for up to 32 tuners, down a single cable
and can be used with basic splitters - you do need them to either pass
power in one direction or for all the boxes except one to have power
output to the LNB turned off.

Post by Tweed
Another major point to make is that with a Sky Q box can never be connected
on ‘single feed mode’ as it would miss out on either the horizontal or
vertical signals

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

https://www.lyngsat.com/packages/Sky-UK.html

Whatever sky Q is, is is not satellites transmitting on terrestrial TV
frequencies or wifi.

Sky Q appears to be a massively parallel set top box able to hit up to 8
muxes on satellite at 10Ghz and even more shit via the internet. it may
use wifi to connect to the internet

Changing the frequencies satellites work on is a little beyond 'man in a
van' maintenance.

And a sky dish is simply not useful for receiving frequencies below 1Ghz.

You would do better with a Yagi array.

[Tweed]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

There’s still a mixer downconverter in the LNB

[mm0fmf]

Post by Tweed

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

There’s still a mixer downconverter in the LNB

Correcting errors in TNP's posts is contra-indicated.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by mm0fmf

Post by Tweed

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the
backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

There’s still a mixer downconverter in the LNB

Correcting errors in TNP's posts is contra-indicated.

The error is in people claimimg that the satellite transission uses wifi
and TV frequencies in sky Q.

Its the downlink that is using them in order to accomodate a wider IF
frequency span.

Twin cables has nothing to do with frequency.

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The error is in people claimimg that the satellite transission uses wifi
and TV frequencies in sky Q.

The frequencies from the satellite to the LNB are no different with a
"traditional" universal LNB, a Sky Q LNB or a Unicable LNB. The
difference is signals that are in the down-leads between then box and
the LNB the technology in the box. In the past it was one down lead for
every decoded transponder (MUX). With Sky Q it's 2 down-leads for up to
12 transponders and with unicable II 1 down-lead for up to 32 transponders.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Its the downlink  that is using them in order to accomodate a wider IF
frequency span.
Twin cables has nothing to do with frequency.

In the case of Sky Q it is because for their satellite implementation to
work that have to use the frequencies previously used for terrestrial TV
and dab and FM radio.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m
In the case of Sky Q it is because for their satellite implementation to
work that have to use the frequencies previously used for terrestrial TV
and dab and FM radio.

Only in the *downlead*.

It's just the IF frequency. You don't talk about AM radios 'using'
455Khz or FM 10.7MHz or Radar 'using' 45MHz

If you actually understood the stuff you read, you would have made that
clear.

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by alan_m
In the case of Sky Q it is because for their satellite implementation
to work that have to use the frequencies previously used for
terrestrial TV and dab and FM radio.

Only in the *downlead*.

As I have previous said - in the downlead cable(s).

[Andy Burns]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

The satellites are *still* in the 10 GHz band, previously the LNB would
selectively (under control of the receiver) shift the frequencies down
by 9.75 GHz or 10.6 GHz giving the hi/lo sets of muxes

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Whatever sky Q is, is is not satellites transmitting on terrestrial TV
frequencies or wifi.

with wideband all muxes are shifted down by 10.41 GHz, it is terrestrial
frequencies on the cables (290 MHz to 2340 MHz)

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Sky Q appears to be a massively parallel set top box able to hit up to 8
muxes on satellite at 10Ghz and even more shit via the internet. it may
use wifi to connect to the internet

it also creates its own wifi mesh for any extra Q boxes in additional rooms.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Changing the frequencies satellites work on is a little beyond 'man in a
van' maintenance.

which is why they haven't done that

Post by The Natural Philosopher
And a sky dish is simply not useful for receiving frequencies below 1Ghz.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Andy Burns
it also creates its own wifi mesh for any extra Q boxes in
additional rooms.

Indeed they can but they don't have to.

We have one SkyQ minibox and it is connected to the main box via our
core switch (ethernet). All wifi and rf is switched off on both SkyQ
boxes and has never been operational.

[SteveW]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tweed
The Sky Q system now uses a frequency band which now includes all the band
previously reserved for traditional terrestrial TV signals (It is this part
mainly for installers where Sky Q has become a pain in the backside). It is
what we call a “wideband LNB” which ranges from 230Mhz just above DAB radio
right the way through the terrestrial TV signal band and up to 2359Mhz just
beneath the 2.4Ghz band typically used for WIFI.

Er no. The satellites are up in the 10Ghz band

I did not write what you have attributed t me.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Max Demian

Post by alan_m

I live in a high rise council flat and I have this socket with four
https://i.imgur.com/f0V8B58.jpeg
I asked the company dealing with the electrical maintenance for the
building and they told me that the TV socket is for terrestrial TV and
SAT1 and SAT2 are for satellite TV, but they couldn't tell me the
difference between SAT 1 and 2.

Assuming that it's not wired for sky Q its just two independent
outputs from an LNB or some form of distribution box. Many satellite
boxes require more than one satellite input to be able to watch one
channel whilst recording another

Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

Every LNB can be configured to receive *one* of the above.

It used to be one LNB=one cable, but things have got a bit more complex.
And now you can feed signals from more than one LNB down the same cable.

"The LNB is a combination of low-noise amplifier, frequency mixer, local
oscillator and intermediate frequency (IF) amplifier. It serves as the
RF front end of the satellite receiver, receiving the microwave signal
from the satellite collected by the dish, amplifying it, and
downconverting the block of frequencies to a lower block of intermediate
frequencies (IF). This downconversion allows the signal to be carried to
the indoor satellite TV receiver using relatively cheap coaxial cable;
if the signal remained at its original microwave frequency it would
require an expensive and impractical waveguide line.

The LNB is usually a small box suspended on one or more short booms, or
feed arms, in front of the dish reflector, at its focus (although some
dish designs have the LNB on or behind the reflector). The microwave
signal from the dish is picked up by a feedhorn on the LNB and is fed to
a section of waveguide. One or more metal pins, or probes, protrude into
the waveguide at right angles to the axis and act as antennas, feeding
the signal to a printed circuit board inside the LNB's shielded box for
processing. The lower frequency IF output signal emerges from a socket
on the box to which the coaxial cable connects.

The LNB gets its power from the receiver or set-top box, using the same
coaxial cable that carries signals from the LNB to the receiver. This
phantom power travels to the LNB; opposite to the signals from the LNB....

....The simplification of antenna design that accompanied the first
Astra DTH broadcast satellites in Europe to produce the LNBF extended to
a simpler approach to the selection between vertical and horizontal
polarized signals too. Astra type LNBFs incorporate two probes in the
waveguide, at right angles to one another so that, once the LNB has been
skewed in its mount to match the local polarization angle, one probe
collects horizontal signals and the other vertical, and an electronic
switch (controlled by the voltage of the LNB's power supply from the
receiver: 13 V for vertical and 18 V for horizontal) determines which
polarization is passed on through the LNB for amplification and
block-downconversion.

Such LNBs can receive all the transmissions from a satellite with no
moving parts and with just one cable connected to the receiver, and have
since become the most common type of LNB produced. "

..Wiki

I do not believe that any satellite dongles can handle more than one LNB
down the same cable.

Satellite is a very good way to receive TV in places where the receiver
is well below the horizon. like in a valley (as I was).

As I recall there was a little more content on freesat than freeview.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Max Demian
Sky Q boxes seem to have two satellite connections. How does this work
as satellite signals have four flavours, with horizontal/vertical
polarisation and high/low frequency ranges?

The Q LNB uses one cable for all horizontally polarised muxes and
another for all vertically polarised muxes, it frequency shifts all
muxes down by 10.4 GHz so there's no hi/lo band selection.