TV2 Out - Antenna
- Thread starter Dish416
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 4K
I've been doing exactly that for years with both my 722 & 622. Works great. My antenna is amplified, maybe that's why. Just use a splitter in reverse. TV2 and antenna on "outputs" and existing coax to other TVs on "input". 
Ed
Ed
I've been doing exactly that for years with both my 722 & 622. Works great. My antenna is amplified, maybe that's why. Just use a splitter in reverse. TV2 and antenna on "outputs" and existing coax to other TVs on "input".
Ed
ditto
Are you talking about a regular antenna amp? How much gain? Do you put the amp on the TV2 output, or the combiner (splitter in reverse) output? What kind of antenna do you attach?
So you're saying that the millions of wireless video transmitters already sold, are all illegal?
Last edited:
do they still sell them?
be careful, we aren't talking about the transmitter/recevier pairs that operate at 2.4Mhz. We're talking about something that retransmites an actual NTSC TV signal.
Last edited:
Not if it is done OTA in a manner that could interfere with licensed broadcasts.
The DISH Network RCA says that if your neighbors are receiving your signal (wired or wireless), DISH can charge you a penalty equal to the monthly programming fee for each neighbor regardless of whether they subscribe to DISH Network.
Rationalizing that you don't think anyone is getting hurt doesn't make it legal or justified.
Ed,I've been doing exactly that for years with both my 722 & 622. Works great. My antenna is amplified, maybe that's why. Just use a splitter in reverse. TV2 and antenna on "outputs" and existing coax to other TVs on "input".
this is not what the OP was talking about. You are combining your OTA signal with your TV2 coax output using a splitter in reverse and sending the combined signal via coax.
Of course they are still sold, although I don't see a single box like my Homer Technology HTM9000 still being built.
Devices that are still being built and sold are the transmitter/receiver pairs you seem to think make it legal, where my HTM9000 (presumably) you think is not.I think you and harshness are mistaken. Sure, I can't turn on a high powered transmitter and interfere with a commercial TV station. But I believe low power transmitters are perfectly legal due to their short range and negligible threat to the megawatt broadcasters. If there is no threshhold below which NTSC broadcasting is legal, then we can guess why Homer Technology went out of business.
Last edited:
It is/was my belief that re-transmission OTA was forbidden at any level. However, Dish has a drawing showing just that setup as a means to extend RF remote control signals. The OTA antenna at the remote location is the little stub antenna normally connected to the Remote Control connector on the back of the receiver.
Years ago they sold devices that used either batteries or an adapter that accepted video and audio in on RCA connectors and transmitted on a UHF channel. I still have one that xmits on UHF Ch. 14. Mine never worked very well.
the drawing showing the remote extender doesn't count because that is a receiver, not an transmitter. The remote is the transmitter.
Not totally correct. Of course the antenna serves to receive the RF remote signal. However, it also sees the modulated receiver output of TV1 and indeed will transmit that signal OTA, albeit weakly. That modulated signal comes via the splitter to two outputs one outlet to TV2 and the other outlet to the stub antenna.
You can do the same if back feed into your cable system. Don't do it. That's just asking for trouble. We have done it as a temporary solution for fight/game day, but that's it. A lot of people think nothing will happen, but you never know when someone is checking. i.e., i never remember seeing a google truck in my neighborhood, but it's obvious they were. google maps proves it.
Wire your house and use the appropriate filters if necessary, or purchase a private wireless distribution system. Either would be cheaper than the penalties and legal fees of doing it illegally.
Wire your house and use the appropriate filters if necessary, or purchase a private wireless distribution system. Either would be cheaper than the penalties and legal fees of doing it illegally.
I suppose getting the last word is important, but the drawing shows a splitter.
In any event, you said, "the drawing showing the remote extender doesn't count because that is a receiver..." "the drawing" shows a splitter not a diplexor and I explained above that of course it does count because that coax carries the output of TV1. lol
Last edited:
sorry about that. i didn't actually look at the drawing was going on memory. so you are correct.
when my was installed the guy used diplexors so i assumed all were done that way.
when my was installed the guy used diplexors so i assumed all were done that way.
If we do the splitter trick to extend the remote antenna to tv2 location for a customer, we are supposed to use the attenuator between the antenna and the splitter to eliminate the possibility of broadcasting tv2 out to the neighbors.
