Long Freeview TV aerial extension cable - use F plugs & satellite cable?

70 views
Skip to first unread message

John Stumbles

unread,
May 9, 2007, 6:34:09 PM5/9/07
to
I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension. We're in a
weak signal area (Reading) which is not even suposed to be able to get
Freeview (though we can - I've tried it). To keep losses down and make
termination easier (than bloody BL plugs!) I'm thinking of using
'satellite' type cable (as used by NTL^H^H^HVirgin) and F plugs.

Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not low-loss?)

And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

tia

--
John Stumbles

Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

Robin

unread,
May 9, 2007, 7:00:27 PM5/9/07
to
> http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower
> prices on
> cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings
> with
> them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF
> out
> socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not
> low-loss?)
>
I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
stands in the rankings.

HTH

--
Robin


Lobster

unread,
May 10, 2007, 2:36:31 AM5/10/07
to
John Stumbles wrote:
> I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
> from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
> house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
> back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension.

Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?

David

Steve

unread,
May 10, 2007, 3:13:51 AM5/10/07
to
John Stumbles wrote:
> I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
> from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
> house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
> back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension. We're in a
> weak signal area (Reading) which is not even suposed to be able to get
> Freeview (though we can - I've tried it). To keep losses down and make
> termination easier (than bloody BL plugs!) I'm thinking of using
> 'satellite' type cable (as used by NTL^H^H^HVirgin) and F plugs.
>
> Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
> specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
> between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

F plugs are far superior in every way to the old BL plugs.

As far as coax goes, you get what you pay for. Normally cheap versions
have reduced braid coverage and an aluminiumised foil to make up for the
lack of braiding. Good coax of this type (like proper CT100 or equiv.)
has much more braid coverage and a copper foil under the braid. There
are lots of cheap imitations about so beware. CT100 and the like are
semi-air spaced whilst cables such as PF100 have a foam dielectric. RG6
has solid polythene dielectric, is thinner and is much more lossy but
more flexible. RG6 is normally used for CCTV installations where loss is
not a problem or for the situation you describe below again where loss
is not so important.


>
> http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on
> cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings with
> them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF out
> socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not low-loss?)
>
> And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
> crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

Crimps are quicker and easier if you have lots to do. Electrically
crimped and twist-on are identical if made correctly. So for the odd
connection I would use the twist on. My crimp tool for these has a
hexagonal die that deforms a circular ring to hex over the cable. Cable
TV companies use a different type of crimp that only fits their cable
along with special F plugs.

Steve

John Stumbles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 3:44:14 AM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:36:31 +0000, Lobster wrote:

> Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
> possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?

I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.
If it involved getting onto the roof I'd (a) put up a new aerial (b) get
someone else to do it!


--
John Stumbles

Pessimists are never disappointed

Lurch

unread,
May 10, 2007, 3:58:12 AM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles
<john.s...@ntlworld.com> mused:

>On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:36:31 +0000, Lobster wrote:
>
>> Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
>> possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?
>
>I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.
>If it involved getting onto the roof I'd (a) put up a new aerial (b) get
>someone else to do it!

All sounds a bit DIY to me, oh, right. Well, I can see you're thinking
there.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Dave Liquorice

unread,
May 10, 2007, 4:56:11 AM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

> I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.

Might be easier to fish it up from the eaves rather than between tiles. To
do the latter you are going to have to puncture the sarking, thus creating
a possible water ingress point.

Even with the eaves you'll probably need to get up to them to drill the
hole and poke the cable through. Slinging a light bit of kite string on a
*small* weight over the roof (so as not to crack any tiles) and hauling
the full current cable over with that might be easier.

--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice

unread,
May 10, 2007, 4:58:22 AM5/10/07
to
On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:34:09 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

> And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
> crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

For good crimps you really need to match the connector to the cable to the
crimp die/tool. The tools are not cheap, so for just a few one offs spend
you money on decent cable and matching (again) twist on connectors.

John Stumbles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 5:25:52 AM5/10/07
to
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:

> I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
> the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
> Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
> stands in the rankings.
>
> HTH

It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_and_Satellite_Aerial_Installation


--
John Stumbles

I've got nothing against racists - I just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one

Geoff Winkless

unread,
May 10, 2007, 5:42:02 AM5/10/07
to
John Stumbles wrote:
> Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
> specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
> between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

Others have addressed this.

> http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on

http://www.qvsdirect.com/qvsshop/electrical_prods/satellite-cable-black-100m-drum.html

£27 delivered for 100m

Geoff

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 10, 2007, 6:08:05 AM5/10/07
to
Far better plan is to put a booster in the loft.

Steve

unread,
May 10, 2007, 6:29:36 AM5/10/07
to
John Stumbles wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:
>
>
>>I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
>>the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
>>Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
>>http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
>>stands in the rankings.
>>
>>HTH
>
>
> It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here
>
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_and_Satellite_Aerial_Installation
>
>
Very good.

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

Steve

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 10, 2007, 6:38:39 AM5/10/07
to
Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for Ethernet.
All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the natural
impedance of a dipole.

Steve

unread,
May 10, 2007, 7:01:15 AM5/10/07
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>

>> Very good.
>>
>> Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
>> communications and this is its main use.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for Ethernet.
> All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the natural
> impedance of a dipole.

Maybe I should have made that clearer and said commercial radio
communications. 50 ohm is the industry standard.

All my aerials (yagis) were fed with 50 ohm coax 7/8" & 1/2" Heliax
before I moved, but often, as you say, people do use 75 ohm for things
like dipoles but rarely in the commercial world.

Steve

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 10, 2007, 8:31:41 AM5/10/07
to
Ah, all now makes sense..yes for some reason 50ohm is the de-facto
standard in high quality stuff. Where the cost of matching it to the
antenna is trivial compared with the installation costs.
It is a complete nono for domestic installations of aerials though.
Without a balun etc anyway. Gets you nasty reflections and standing waves..

Once past the first amplifier..if the kit is designed for it, yep, BNC
or better and 50ohm all the way..

Steve

unread,
May 10, 2007, 10:00:26 AM5/10/07
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Very good.
>>>>
>>>> Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
>>>> communications and this is its main use.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for
>>> Ethernet. All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the
>>> natural impedance of a dipole.
>>
>>
>> Maybe I should have made that clearer and said commercial radio
>> communications. 50 ohm is the industry standard.
>>
>> All my aerials (yagis) were fed with 50 ohm coax 7/8" & 1/2" Heliax
>> before I moved, but often, as you say, people do use 75 ohm for things
>> like dipoles but rarely in the commercial world.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Ah, all now makes sense..yes for some reason 50ohm is the de-facto
> standard in high quality stuff. Where the cost of matching it to the
> antenna is trivial compared with the installation costs.

Only if you are considering dipoles where the impedance will be about 73
ohm and only if that dipole is at a half wavelength or multiple thereof
above average ground. Most dipoles are anything but 73 ohm in reality,
depending on their surroundings. So most aerials need matching to their
feeder anyway.

> It is a complete nono for domestic installations of aerials though.
> Without a balun etc anyway. Gets you nasty reflections and standing waves..
>

A lot of it is historical, dating back from WW2, as a compromise between
loss, power handling and saving copper.

75 ohm cable uses less copper for a given cable diameter to achieve the
same loss, because the inner conductor is thinner and the dielectric is
correspondingly thicker. This makes 75 ohm cheaper to make than the
equivalent 50 ohm version... all other things being equal of course.

Because of the fatter inner conductor and especially because of the
"skin effect", 50 ohm cable can handle more RF power than 75 ohm of the
same overall diameter for a given temperature rise. This is despite the
additional current that must flow in a 50 ohm system for a given power
and is all due to the increased surface area of the coax inner and with
slightly less thermal insulation from the dielectric.

>> Once past the first amplifier..if the kit is designed for it, yep, BNC
>> or better and 50ohm all the way..

Once past the first amplifier, for household receiving purposes it makes
little difference! In fact a properly made-off good quality F connector
would probably outperform a BNC (given that both used comparable coax)
which ultimately relies on friction for connection surface on both inner
and outer whilst a F connector has only one friction connection.

Steve

charles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 11:11:30 AM5/10/07
to
In article <11787937...@iris.uk.clara.net>,

Most pro aerials use 50ohm. After all, there are very few simple dipoles
in use and many of them are folded with a natural 300 ohm impedance.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

John Stumbles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 3:56:33 PM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:29:36 +0000, Steve wrote:

> Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
> communications and this is its main use.

It's used for Ethernet too, but I was writing from the POV of TV+Sat

--
John Stumbles

Bitwise, byte foolish

John Stumbles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 4:01:18 PM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:56:11 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

> On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.
>
> Might be easier to fish it up from the eaves rather than between tiles. To
> do the latter you are going to have to puncture the sarking, thus creating
> a possible water ingress point.

The sarking's peeling apart at some joints already and no sign of water
ingress so I'll give it a whirl ... when/if I can get SWMBO to shift
enough of her jun^H^H^Hvalued posessions to get up there :-/


--
John Stumbles

Xenophobia? - sounds a bit foreign to me.

John Stumbles

unread,
May 10, 2007, 4:04:33 PM5/10/07
to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Far better plan is to put a booster in the loft.

Yebbut I still need a cable to get it downstairs. I'll put in a booster if
I have to but not knowing if there are strong in-band signals as well as
the weak wanted signals, just slinging in a booster might be a waste of
money whereas spending it on decent cable seems less likely to be.

--
John Stumbles

Things don't like being anthropomorphised.

Message has been deleted

John Stumbles

unread,
May 11, 2007, 9:35:44 PM5/11/07
to
On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:28 +0100, Edster wrote:

> Would old ethernet cable be any good as a TV cable? I've got loads of
> that left over from when I switched to Cat5.

No. It's the wrong impedance.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 12, 2007, 3:30:48 AM5/12/07
to
In message <QR81i.12929$8E....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John Stumbles
<john.s...@ntlworld.com> writes

>On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:28 +0100, Edster wrote:
>
>> Would old ethernet cable be any good as a TV cable? I've got loads of
>> that left over from when I switched to Cat5.
>
>No. It's the wrong impedance.
>
Yes, the ethernet cable would be 50 ohms. I wouldn't use it out of
choice, but there's a good chance it would still work. Try a
run of it, and find out!
Ian.
--

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 3:36:52 AM5/12/07
to

Not good. You will get standing waves - peaks and nulls

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 12, 2007, 4:05:23 AM5/12/07
to
In message <117895545...@despina.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes

Please quantify.
Ian.
--

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 6:01:04 AM5/12/07
to
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <117895545...@despina.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <QR81i.12929$8E....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John Stumbles
>>> <john.s...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:28 +0100, Edster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would old ethernet cable be any good as a TV cable? I've got loads of
>>>>> that left over from when I switched to Cat5.
>>>>
>>>> No. It's the wrong impedance.
>>>>
>>> Yes, the ethernet cable would be 50 ohms. I wouldn't use it out of
>>> choice, but there's a good chance it would still work. Try a
>>> run of it, and find out!
>>> Ian.
>>
>> Not good. You will get standing waves - peaks and nulls
>
> Please quantify.
> Ian.

Not possible without knowing cable length, specific losses and reception
frequency.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 12, 2007, 8:38:47 AM5/12/07
to
In message <117896410...@proxy00.news.clara.net>, The Natural

OK. Let's say 10m, 20dB/100m @ 650MHz. F = 650MHz.
Ian.
--

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 10:22:49 AM5/12/07
to
Bugger..its been 30 years since I had that sort of question in an exam..

Mm,. need to konow the relative propagation speed in the cable as
well..assume its about .9c..so a quarter wave at 650MHz will be around
128cm..

So the 10m will be almost exactly 78 quarter waves..Hmm. You should get
a modest peak around that length.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 12, 2007, 11:01:05 AM5/12/07
to
In message <117897980...@proxy02.news.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <117896410...@proxy00.news.clara.net>, The Natural
>>Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <117895545...@despina.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
>>>>Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> In message <QR81i.12929$8E....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John
>>>>>>Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:28 +0100, Edster wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would old ethernet cable be any good as a TV cable? I've got
>>>>>>>>loads of
>>>>>>>> that left over from when I switched to Cat5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. It's the wrong impedance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the ethernet cable would be 50 ohms. I wouldn't use it out
>>>>>>choice, but there's a good chance it would still work. Try a
>>>>>> run of it, and find out!
>>>>>> Ian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not good. You will get standing waves - peaks and nulls
>>>> Please quantify.
>>>> Ian.
>>>
>>> Not possible without knowing cable length, specific losses and
>>>reception frequency.
>> OK. Let's say 10m, 20dB/100m @ 650MHz. F = 650MHz.
>> Ian.
>Bugger..its been 30 years since I had that sort of question in an exam..
>
>Mm,. need to konow the relative propagation speed in the cable as
>well..assume its about .9c..so a quarter wave at 650MHz will be around
>128cm..
>
>So the 10m will be almost exactly 78 quarter waves..Hmm. You should get
>a modest peak around that length.

But how big will the peak-to-trough amplitude be?

What will be the worst-case slope across an 8MHz channel?

How much signal level will you lose compared with using 75 ohm cable
with the same loss>

[To answer these question, you might choose to assign a notional worst
case value to the STB input RLR .]

Will any of this have a noticeable impact on the quality of a digital
signal?

Ian.
--

Message has been deleted

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 4:54:45 PM5/12/07
to
The short answer is a 'dunno'. My background is from needing as flat a
ferquency reponse as possible. We simply wouldn't introduce anything
like that on principle.
My gut feeling is around +-3dB over a wavelength..

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 4:55:42 PM5/12/07
to
Edster wrote:
> Ian Jackson <IanJacksonR...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> I swapped a 5m 75ohm TV cable for a 5m 50ohm ethernet cable with the
> ends cut off and twist on connectors on it, and didn't notice any
> difference.

In short cases you won't. In some cases you may. I prefer not to take
the risk.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 12, 2007, 5:12:09 PM5/12/07
to
In message <117900338...@proxy00.news.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>Edster wrote:
>> Ian Jackson <IanJacksonR...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In message <117897980...@proxy02.news.clara.net>, The Natural
>>>Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <117896410...@proxy00.news.clara.net>, The
>>>>>Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <117895545...@despina.uk.clara.net>, The
>>>>>>>Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>>>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <QR81i.12929$8E....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John
>>>>>>>>>Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:28 +0100, Edster wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would old ethernet cable be any good as a TV cable? I've got
>>>>>>>>>>>loads of
>>>>>>>>>>> that left over from when I switched to Cat5.
>>>>>>>>>> No. It's the wrong impedance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, the ethernet cable would be 50 ohms. I wouldn't use it
5m is still pretty long compared with the signal wavelength. At what
point will length start to cause problems?
Ian.
--

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 6:51:19 PM5/12/07
to

At any multiple of one eigth of a wavelength.

Think of a wrongly terminated cable as a classic example of
multipath..one signal comes straight down the wire..one comes down the
wire and bounces back to where it started and bounces back down the
wire..and so on ad infinitum, with the strength of the 'ghosts' being a
function of the cable loss over the length and the mismatch of the
impedance at each end which generates some fraction of the power as a
reflected wave. I can't remember the formula.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 13, 2007, 5:23:56 AM5/13/07
to
In message <117901032...@proxy00.news.clara.net>, The Natural

It really depends on how good the input RLR of the STB is. I don't know
what is typical. For analogue CATV boxes, 6dB worst case (3:1 SWR) was
typical, so on certain frequencies. It could actually be a better match
for 50 ohms than for 75. I wonder what DTT boxes are like?

So, with the correct 75 ohm cable, there could be quite a lot of the
signal which gets reflected back from the STB towards the aerial. You
are relying on the aerial being a good 75 ohm match to prevent the
reflection from being re-reflected back again from the aerial. If you
use 50 ohm coax, a good 75 ohm aerial looks like an SWR of 1.5 (14dB
RLR) wrt 50 ohms, so there will obviously be a reflection 14dB down. The
result is that the reflection rattles back and forth along the cable,
being progressively attenuated by the return losses of both the STB and
the aerial, and the cable loss.

As I said, I wouldn't use 50 ohm cable out of choice. But, if you do
feel the need to use it, things might not be as bad as you think they
would be.

Ian.
--

kenk...@btopenworld.com

unread,
May 13, 2007, 5:05:38 PM5/13/07
to
On May 10, 12:00 am, "Robin" <OBVIOUSLYno...@FALSEblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> >http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htmseems to have much lower

> > prices on
> > cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings
> > with
> > them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF
> > out
> > socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not
> > low-loss?)
>
> I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
> the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
> Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cableshttp://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htmto see where RG6

> stands in the rankings.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Robin

Excellent link on cables. Thanks.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages