Mini Cable System

elgemcdlf · #1 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 08:02 AM

Ok I have to look at / think about a trailer park with approx 25 units and runs in the 200' range (4). I was thinking using a couple T90's loaded with lnbf's maybe 4 dishes. Use 2 for V of the arc and 2 for H of the arc. Then running them into receivers and the such. What would I need to maintain signal quality over a 200' run with 6 or so legs running off it? Probably going to start small with maybe only 10 or so channels and gradually build from there. The park owner wants to wire every trailer (he owns them) with intentions of raising rents for the added service.

Would I be best running a quad lnbf or would loop through be fine for as an example I wanted 4 V channels from G10R.

wejones · #2 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elgemcdlf

Ok I have to look at / think about a trailer park with approx 25 units and runs in the 200' range (4). I was thinking using a couple T90's loaded with lnbf's maybe 4 dishes. Use 2 for V of the arc and 2 for H of the arc. Then running them into receivers and the such. What would I need to maintain signal quality over a 200' run with 6 or so legs running off it? Probably going to start small with maybe only 10 or so channels and gradually build from there. The park owner wants to wire every trailer (he owns them) with intentions of raising rents for the added service.

Would I be best running a quad lnbf or would loop through be fine for as an example I wanted 4 V channels from G10R.

I may be off base here, but I'm wondering if this might put the trailer owner in jeopardy of a lawsuit. Ie by raising the rent for added service, he would be in effect selling video content that he doesn't own the rights to. Ie there is nothing wrong with an individual receiving and viewing FTA transmissions, but re-distributing them for profit is clearly a copywrit violation, and discussion of that here may be no different from discussing how to pirate DTV or Dish.

It may be different if he "shared" the signals for no charge, I don't know, however you have introduced this topic with the premise that he is charging for the service. This is really no different from local stations that put their content on sat, and then were forced to scramble via threats of lawsuits, because the uplinkers didn't have the rights to distribute that content where they did.

Just a thought.

elgemcdlf · #3 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 09:37 AM

Had not thought about that. In reality with this situation he would have no control over on and off except for the entire system. His actual thoughts whether legal or not was simply a value added item just as the apartment complexes here in Indy include cable with their rents. His increase in rents was mainly to cover expense of installing, maintaining and growing the channel list of the system.

Something to help give an advantage over other landlords. Personally I would liken it to a bar. He owns all the trailers just as the bar owner (for all practical purposes) owns the bar. You pay a little extra per drink for those 42 tv's running DTV.

wejones · #4 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elgemcdlf

Had not thought about that. In reality with this situation he would have no control over on and off except for the entire system. His actual thoughts whether legal or not was simply a value added item just as the apartment complexes here in Indy include cable with their rents. His increase in rents was mainly to cover expense of installing, maintaining and growing the channel list of the system.

Something to help give an advantage over other landlords. Personally I would liken it to a bar. He owns all the trailers just as the bar owner (for all practical purposes) owns the bar. You pay a little extra per drink for those 42 tv's running DTV.

Of course it is my understanding that those bars generally are supposed to pay a higher subscription cost for DTV, etc, because they are allowing more people to view. I think at one time, there was some way they could tell if a bar had the proper subscription from watching the programming, and they had spies going around to bars threatening to sue if they were just didn't have the proper subscriptions.

Of course, I know that there are lots of sports bars who put FTA DVB feeds of preseason NFL games and other similar feeds, without paying any subscription, but I think that is a case of that if the copywrit owner wanted to go to the trouble, they could sue, but it isn't worth the effort, and in some cases they probably want the extra exposure. Ie I know that people could call some local TV stations and find out what sat/transponder the games would be on, and the local TV stations would give out the info.

I suspect that the trailer park owner wouldn't have any problem, mainly because it would be highly unlikely that any of the uplinkers would ever find out about what they were doing.... unless they did a google an came up with this thread. :-)

I'd think that if the raw sat signals were provided to each trailer, and a FTA receiver installed in each trailer, then perhaps it would be the individual tuning in the channels and there would be no problems, but if the owner receives the channels, then re-distributes each channel, I think there are copywrit problems.

bobkat · #5 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 04:42 PM

I agree with Bill. There are MAJOR legal issues with this. The minute the park owner starts charging money he is in violation of copyright; at least that's how the law works here in Canada. The TV stations must pay royalties to the program producers and most of those royalties are based on private viewing assumptions. When you redistribute those signals around a trailer park it is deemed public viewing (even though in theory you now have many "private" viewers) and the copyright laws change.

I would stay far away from that install if I were you.

kat

glen4cindy · #6 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wejones

Of course it is my understanding that those bars generally are supposed to pay a higher subscription cost for DTV, etc, because they are allowing more people to view.

This is an ablolutely true assessment of the situation. Any business owner of any kind cannot "legally" put DTV, Dish or even the local cable company on any TV without the proper type of service. By type of service, I mean that the supplier, i.e. DTV, Dish etc. must know that the service is being used in this manner.

I used to work for a cable company and for a good amount of time, business owners could install high speed internet as a residental customer. This happened until there was a merger and the new "big boys" put a stop to this.

Unless something has changed, it is also illegal for a business owner to play cassettes, CD's or even AM/FM in the course of business unless the CD's and cassettes are marketed for the specific purpose of being played in the course of business. I guess businesses are expected to buy "Muzak" or something similar.

The park owner, in my opinion, would have to simply do the installation without any cost directly passed upon to any tenant. There would be nothing wrong with raising the rents because this is done all the time when improvements are made, but, it could not be "specifically" because of coax carrying FTA signals.

elgemcdlf · #7 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 07:13 AM

I will just back up a bit. Explain that with this type of setup has to many legal implications to do this way. Maybe the route to follow would be do dish installs on each trailer and either renting the FTA boxes to tenants or outright selling them the receivers.

On initial quick assessment of expenses involved there really would not be much difference. Would be 24 receivers as opposed to initially 10 and same for dishes but no amps or modulators or combiners and one would think considerably less coax to run

He could also start out by only doing a section at a time. 6 trailers in row A and so on.