0

I have a fiber-optic router which also outputs a CATV signal. CATV was unused previously (the service provider includes CATV in the pack but I've never used it before) so it was not taken into account when deciding a place for the router and the fiber-optic ingress to the house.

The room the router is at (and where the fiber-optic enters the house) doesn't have any coax cabling (no TV was put there, it's a "computer room").

Now I'm moving an old TV to a wall where I have a coax cable (TV/SAT) outlet and a ethernet outlet set up, and I want to set up DVB-C on that TV, coming from the router, and also ethernet LAN (for SmartTV related services)

The ethernet outlet on the "TV" has direct connection to a wall outlet near the router (so ethernet wouldn't be a problem), but the current TV/SAT coax outlet doesn't (and there's no easy way to cable it as it is now, those hoses go to a completely different direction and don't come near the "computer room").

So I'm wondering... is there any device I can use to pass the coax cable signal over ethernet? kind of like a MoCA system but the opposite (pass coax over ethernet, not ethernet over coax). Also, I'd need to keep the existing ethernet connection for IP. Not sure if such a thing exists, but that'd basically allow me to do what I need without having to run cables.

My option if that doesn't exist is to -try- and run (I'm not sure how polluted the conduit where the ethernet cable goes might be at some point, I didn't do the installation) a coax cable on the same conduit as the ethernet is in (have both cables in) and split it at the "router room" outlet: would that significantly affect ethernet data (using UTP cat-6 cable, not shielded) by running both on the same conduit? I don't really need that ethernet to be extremely fast (it's just for a FHD Smart TV) so some packet loss should be more thank ok.

There's a third option which would be adding a compatible wifi dongle to the TV and just replace the ethernet cable and wall outlet altogether for coax ones, but if I could avoid that, that'd be great.

I also don't have good experiences with wireless video transmitters (which would be another option), plus that'd also mean buying another STB for cable, which I want to avoid if possible (the TV already has a DVB-C tuner, which I suppose is what the router outputs through the CATV output)

I'm open to alternatives also which could be more work/cost effective than those presented. I'm extremely far from being an expert on these matters and there's surely something I haven't thought of

Jcl
  • 103
  • 4
  • A) a quick sketch of all the different bits and pieces may help people draw a mental image. B) "those hoses go to a completely different direction" - don't think I've ever heard someone refer to a cable as a "hose" before... C) Not VtC, but I'm not quite sure that this falls under the DIY guidelines for on topic questions. D) I will, however VtC because a search for "coax over ethernet" returned a variety of options under $200. – FreeMan Nov 24 '20 at 12:08
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because the OP failed to do a simple search for "coax over ethernet", which is what he's after and that search turned up a wide variety of products within the top 5 results. – FreeMan Nov 24 '20 at 12:08
  • @FreeMan I have indeed searched, but all that comes up is MoCA (which is ethernet over coax) and one cable adapter that said only worked for DOCSIS data. I'm in Spain so my google results (even when searching in english) may vary from yours, but I did indeed search before – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 12:32
  • And about the "hose"... I'm not referring to the cable, but the "corrugated tube" (sorry if that's a wrong word, English is not my native) that runs over the walls where the cables go in – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 12:34
  • 2
    The word you're after for that "tube" is "conduit" or "trunking" (the former North American, the latter British) – ThreePhaseEel Nov 24 '20 at 12:37
  • Have you contacted your service provider? They do keep coming up with new configurations. – JACK Nov 24 '20 at 12:42
  • 1
    My apologies - I searched for "coax over ethernet" but found "ethernet over coax" solutions. More careful searching turned up this [AVforum thread](https://www.avforums.com/threads/sky-coax-over-ethernet.2175850/) which says (as of 2018), that extending a coax signal over ethernet is not possible, and that even if it were, it's a bad idea. (check the thread for details) Based on this thread, you would be better off converting at the incoming location with some sort of remote tuner, then sending the final output via HDMI (which can be transmitted via ethernet). – FreeMan Nov 24 '20 at 12:43
  • @ThreePhaseEel thanks, edited, hope it's more clear now :-) – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 12:44
  • @FreeMan hdmi over ethernet + ir remote, I have considered, but that means adding a stb plus having another remote. That'd be my last resort, but if I can avoid it, that'd be great – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 13:35
  • Based on the thread I linked, it sounds less like "last resort" and more like "only resort". Well, that, or pull some coax through your walls. Honestly, if you've got conduit all the way from the network interface to where you want the TV, pulling a cable should be reasonably easy. (For some values of "reasonably"...) – FreeMan Nov 24 '20 at 14:22
  • @FreeMan yes, and I'll probably do that... part of my question was asking if passing both (ethernet + coax) on one conduit would give too much interference... but I've googled around and it seems that triple-shielded coax would work ok with even UTP Cat-6, so I believe I'll go that route. Thanks for your input, much appreciated (and really on point)! – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 14:24

2 Answers2

1

Based on this AVforum thread (from 2018), forwarding a coax-delivered TV/satellite signal over Ethernet isn't possible and if it were, it would probably be a bad idea anyway. Some relevant quotes in case the link dies:

Unlike say a HDMI signal you had previously which is just one signal albeit high bandwidth satellite signals are lots of different ones on the cable. Hence you use a satellite tuner to tune into the relevant frequency.

Sky Q uses a wideband LNB which has a frequency range of 230MHz to 2359MHz so not feasible to send all these signals this cables in a different manner down a CAT cable.
I'm not certain what TV carrier the OP is using, but I believe the concept is similar no matter who the carrier is. --Ed

A good friend of mine is an aerial/satellite specialist and says it's not even a good idea to extend coax with more coax! Whenever there is a break in the copper joined by couplers or whatever, the impedance can change massively affecting signal quality. He doesn't even terminate to sockets and runs cable from LMB to Sky box because of these issues; he's been burned by this too many times.

Since it seems you have conduit in your walls, your best bet would be to pull a good quality coax cable (I believe RJ56 (or is it RJ59?) is the current "best") from the entry point in your house to as close to your use point as possible.

Both high-grade coax and Cat6 cables are well insulated against RF interference, and the Cat6 cables design even allows it to run next to power lines without picking up significant interference. (Note: it's still recommended to keep Ethernet cables away from power, but it's not critical in most use cases, and it's only a few inches.)

FreeMan
  • 43,073
  • 21
  • 81
  • 173
0

I think your question could benefit from some consolidation. However, my suggestion is investigate any wireless TV options your service provider may offer. In the U.S. this is the trend and it makes installations in homes much easier.

I had such a system from AT&T/DirecTV. The main box was located in a second-floor loft with a coax cable run to the satellite antenna. Additional wireless TV boxes were in other rooms, including one in the basement. This worked great.

Jeff Wheeler
  • 3,393
  • 10
  • 20
  • Thanks for the answer. I checked with them and no dice. It's a very small provider reselling fiber-optic for areas where "big ones" don't reach and their services are very limited I'm afraid – Jcl Nov 24 '20 at 13:32