[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: RG6 vs CT100
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: RG6 vs CT100
- From: "Roger Bilboul" <Bilboul@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:51:27 -0000
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
NTL finally got round to installing a Digital TV feed into my house last
week.
And, just as their head office had told me, the NTL installers seemed
convinced that the CT100 cable I'd already had installed was not good
enough
to carry their signal.
They suggested that I had it replaced with RG6 because, they claimed, CT100
is an "air-filled" cable which would cause the signal to
deteriorate.
But because replacing the cable would have involved taking the floorboards
up I managed to convince them to give my CT100 a go. In spite of their
misgivings once they'd wired it up my TV was displaying pin-sharp digital
TV
pictures.
They left muttering that it was bound to deteriorate in the next month or
two and left me some RG6 just in case.
When the NTL surveyor turned up the next day to check the installation he
seemed equally surprised to see that the CT100 was working so well, and
approved the installation.
He did say that once NTL launch their interactive service I won't be able
to
use it as the CT100 doesn't provide a return path. But I think I'll just
wait and see about that...
Roger Bilboul
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/2065/_/977136759/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|