[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: "Mark McCall" <mark@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:49:59 -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
WOT!?
Is it April 1st?
M.
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>sentto-1109639-4371-975681786-mark=automatedhome.co.uk@xxxxxxx
>om
>[mailto:sentto-1109639-4371-975681786-mark=automatedhome.co.uk@xxxxxxx
>nelist.com]On Behalf Of Roger Bilboul
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:42 PM
>To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ukha_d] RG6 vs CT100
>
>
>NTL have now come back to me to say that CT100 is unidirectional and
with
>NTL's digital cable service they need to send data back up the cable as
>opposed to, say Sky (satellite) digital which uses the telephone for
any
>feedback. As RG6 is bi-directional it is the recommended cable. If only
I
>knew when I installed CT100!!!
>
>Roger
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tracey.gardner [mailto:tracey.gardner@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 06:10
>> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ukha_d] RG6 vs CT100
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Agree with James. Your CT100 is a higher quality cable
than RG6.
>> >
>>
>>
>> According to my catalogues the relative losses for RG6 and CT100
at
>> 400MHz are 13.1db and 13.0db respectively so there's very little
to
>> choose between them performance wise.
>>
>> Tracey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/2065/_/975682233/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|